The Supreme Court & Obamacare

[stjaba]

Growing wheat is not any more a commercial activity in itself than my growing flowers in my backyard.  It's only a commercial activity if the wheat enters into commerce.

And I doubt the case would have been judged the same way if McCullough had been growing wheat only for personal use.

That' shouldn't make a difference, at least based on recent supreme court precedent. The modern version of the Wickard (what) case is the Reich case, which involved the legality of the law criminalizing frowing marijuana. In Reich, the Court said it was constitutional to criminalize the growing of marijuana even for personal consumption because the choice to grow one's own marijauna still affects the national marijuana market.

[Admiral Yi]

That' shouldn't make a difference, at least based on recent supreme court precedent. The modern version of the Wickard (what) case is the Reich case, which involved the legality of the law criminalizing frowing marijuana. In Reich, the Court said it was constitutional to criminalize the growing of marijuana even for personal consumption because the choice to grow one's own marijauna still affects the national marijuana market.

OK.  Wonder why that case wasn't cited in oral arguments.  Maybe because Virreli was higher than Willie Nelson.

Makes me think another line Virreli could have pursued is that the choice to not buy health insurance is de facto a choice to self-insure.

(Intrade around 64 today.)

As a general question, do most federal criminal laws on things like carjacking, kidnapping, etc., fall under the Commerce Clause?

[The Minsky Moment]

As a general question, do most federal criminal laws on things like carjacking, kidnapping, etc., fall under the Commerce Clause?

Yes.  Most contain some explicit requirement of a link to interstate commerce.  For example the kidnapping statute requires transport across state lines, or use of the mails or other instrumentality of interstate commerce.

[MadImmortalMan]

They put up the Christmas tree on the WH lawn under the commerce clause too.

[garbon]

No, sorry you're quite right (and the thing I was reading said as much).  It does require knowledge but not intent - that's another bit (' knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity').  But even so the crime is still a failure to act.  The point he makes is that if the decision not to buy health insurance is inactivity then surely the decision not to stop a person from harassing someone is also inactivity?

I don't understand why that's not facilitation. You provided the means for the crime and allowed it to occur.

I think you would have a point if the law allowed an individual who just witnessed threatening calls being made to be charged with a crime for not reporting/stopping it.

[Sheilbh]

I don't understand why that's not facilitation. You provided the means for the crime and allowed it to occur.

Providing the means is far more active than this, that would be like giving someone a knife or in this case giving them the phone.  Here they're just using it and you're allowing it to occur.  In general terms allowing it to occur, certainly in England, is not a crime.  The general rule is that you cannot be liable for failing to prevent a crime with a few exceptions.  It's similar to the idea Kennedy mentioned that there's no duty to stop a blind man walking off a cliff.  But here a legal duty is imposed on you that you must stop a crime from happening.

Let's say you share a flat with someone who smokes a lot of pot.  You know he does.  He uses your lighter and your Rizla maybe your tobacco, but you have them because you're a smoker.  If the same principles were applied you'd be under a duty to stop him smoking in those circumstances, or you'd be liable.  In English law that's not allowed it would go against principle and you'd need to show something else to justify that duty to intervene.  Otherwise you're convicting someone for their thoughts and the fact of their presence with no physical act. 

That's why it seems like it's regulating inactivity.

[The Minsky Moment]

OK.  Wonder why that case wasn't cited in oral arguments.

It featured prominently in the briefing.  The Solicitor General probably realized that the justices didn't need elaborate explanation because most the justices were on the Court when it was decided.

The hard reality is that there are certain justices who are likely to be more sympathetic to a federal law enforcement effort to control marijuana use than what some might characterize as a hubristic exercise in social engineering.

[Admiral Yi]

The hard reality is that there are certain justices who are likely to be more sympathetic to a federal law enforcement effort to control marijuana use than what some might characterize as a hubristic exercise in social engineering.

But that's one of the beauties of the system: sympathies have to be justified.

[merithyn]

I skimmed this thread and saw nothing on this, so I'll go ahead and ask it. How is it unconstitutional to require health insurance, but not unconstitutional to require car insurance? Is it because that's done state-by-state, or am I missing something else entirely?

[Fate]

I skimmed this thread and saw nothing on this, so I'll go ahead and ask it. How is it unconstitutional to require health insurance, but not unconstitutional to require car insurance? Is it because that's done state-by-state, or am I missing something else entirely?

STATEZ WIGHTS.

[sbr]

I skimmed this thread and saw nothing on this, so I'll go ahead and ask it. How is it unconstitutional to require health insurance, but not unconstitutional to require car insurance? Is it because that's done state-by-state, or am I missing something else entirely?

You have the choice to not own a car, as impractical as that seems here.

EDIT: And the fact that it is done by states.

[Fate]

I skimmed this thread and saw nothing on this, so I'll go ahead and ask it. How is it unconstitutional to require health insurance, but not unconstitutional to require car insurance? Is it because that's done state-by-state, or am I missing something else entirely?

You have the choice to not own a car, as impractical as that seems here.

EDIT: And the fact that it is done by states.

Okay, so the Supreme Court should amend the Obamacare to give GOPtards an option of never utilizing an emergency room without insurance and we can let them die in the waiting room when they show up anyway.  Win-win! 

[DontSayBanana]

I skimmed this thread and saw nothing on this, so I'll go ahead and ask it. How is it unconstitutional to require health insurance, but not unconstitutional to require car insurance? Is it because that's done state-by-state, or am I missing something else entirely?

Because you voluntarily choose to purchase a car and enter into the regulated sector.

[Barrister]

I skimmed this thread and saw nothing on this, so I'll go ahead and ask it. How is it unconstitutional to require health insurance, but not unconstitutional to require car insurance? Is it because that's done state-by-state, or am I missing something else entirely?

Because you voluntarily choose to purchase a car and enter into the regulated sector.

Not quite.

First asnwer is, as mentioned, that car insurance is a state matter.

But even then you have the option to own a car, yet not have insurance.  You 'merely' can't use it on any public road or highway.

[Razgovory]

What about that sailor thingy that Grumbler was on about?