Judge Napolitano Pops the Health Care Constitutionality Question

People can argue constitutionality until they're blue in the face. But constitionality of a law can only be determined by the courts. Some have, for example, argued the constitutionality of Medicare, but to date, no litigant has challenged the Constitutional basis of the Medicare act.

 

Medicare is a voluntary program. No one is forced by the government to enroll, even though everyone who works is taxed to pay for it.

The proposals for government run health care, OTOH, force people and companies to buy insurance or enroll in plans; or face government sanctions (i.e. taxes). This is an "involuntary" enrollment into the programs that many see as unconstitutional.

Make no mistake, if such a plan becomes law, it will be challenged in court.

peace to youraying:

 

Good point. Assuming Medicare, which is voluntary, is constitutional, then it stands to reason that public funded healthcare would likewise be constitutional, so long as it likewise is voluntary. You're right, however, about a court challenge. Regardless of what plan becomes codified, I can't see it NOT being legally challenged.

 

This is absurd. It either is or it isn't regardless of what the court or anyone says. The truth has already been established when the constitution was created. The fact that an activist court comes along and creates a new definition is not germain to this issue.

 

So, the answer is that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, but if the courts don't rule the way we see it, then they're activist?

 

You should refrain from further characterization of my words. That way you are not wrong so much. Of course you insisted that no one else should hold a view on the constitution except the courts and we should all just sit around and wait for them to tell us what it says.And you gave room for anything goes on the courts.None of which is true.

 

Your words are self-evident. It is a matter of fact that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and the courts alone, and not by public opinion (you think that's absurd, even though that's a matter of objective fact).

According to yoru prior post, it is your opinion that, if the courts don't rule the way we see it, then you consider that court activist.

 

You will have to present the post where I gave those exact words. When you don't you can apologize.

 

In post #6, you disagreed that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and you cited "activist judges".

I dont' disagree with you, but that could be applied to every sitting SCOTUS court since 1791. In subjectivity, we usually only apply those to courts that don't cocur with our opinions (admittedly, I am among that number).

 

None of this is true, you either have a reading comprehension issue or you are so blinded by your lack of objectivity when it comes to my posts that you are deceiving yourself. It is best to ask for clarification when you don't know rather than falsely characterize someones post.

 

it seems to me that there's really no difference between the two. You are forced to pay for medicare but not to use it. You would be forced to pay for medical insurance but not to use it. What's the difference?

 

Come on Alatide... read... the healthcare bill.. all of them have the word "Mandatory"...

That means Americans will be forced to have health insurance... whether they want it or not. Just because some big shot know it all in DC thinks he knows whats best for me and my family. It is an invasion into our freedom.

That's the difference.