I'm sure it's been discussed in depth, I'm trying to out-source some google work!

I'm sure it's been discussed in depth, I'm trying to out-source some google work!

 

How much does this job pay?

They held a preliminary vote on Friday.

 

It takes months to research and write the opinions and determine if they are going to write a separate dissent or concurrence.

 

 

 

I'm asking what power the state has that the Federal government doesn't that justifies the mandate. State power is still governed by their own constitutions.

As for the vote, I always had the impression that was not really a vote, more of an airing of initial positions, before they all go heads-down to study. This article does make it seem more formal than that, so I am a bit surprised.

 

About your last line, your question doesn't really make any sense. The states have whatever power they want, outside of those enumerated to the federation in the Constitution and existing federal law. Which you then answer with your last sentence - their own constitutions. Which is what I said.

I'm sure it's been discussed in depth, I'm trying to out-source some google work!

If I were to Google that, all I'd get was recent 2012 news documents thanks to their new search algorithm.

Preliminary google results seem to point towards a potential conflict between "compelling commerce" and "police powers" and what, exactly, the mandate falls under. More on this story as it develops...

As for the vote, I always had the impression that was not really a vote, more of an airing of initial positions, before they all go heads-down to study. This article does make it seem more formal than that, so I am a bit surprised.

 

It's not binding but they need to get going on the opinions soon, and you can't determine who's writing the opinion until you know what positions people are taking.

About your last line, your question doesn't really make any sense. The states have whatever power they want, outside of those enumerated to the federation in the Constitution and existing federal law. Which you then answer with your last sentence - their own constitutions. Which is what I said.

 

What power does a mandate exercise? That's the question I'm asking. If it isn't Federally Constitutional, it isn't the power to regulate interstate commerce or N&P to do so.

If I were to Google that, all I'd get was recent 2012 news documents thanks to their new search algorithm.

 

They are all kinds of time tools in the search options, including a custom time range where you can pick the dates you want covered.

What power does a mandate exercise? That's the question I'm asking. If it isn't Federally Constitutional, it isn't the power to regulate interstate commerce or N&P to do so.

States can definitely regulate commerce - intrastate, and in some cases even interstate, unless the federal government chooses to intercede. If a state mandates its own citizens to buy a product, that is not interstate commerce.

 

States can definitely regulate commerce - intrastate, and in some cases even interstate, unless the federal government chooses to intercede. If a state mandates its own citizens to buy a product, that is not interstate commerce.

 

But if it's just commerce regulation, intra- or inter-, then it'd be Federally Constitutional since the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce and health insurance qualifies (at least no one is making an argument to the contrary that I've seen, and it certainly didn't seem to be a central element of Clement's arguments).

 

If it is ok for states but not ok for Feds, it must be some other power being exercised.

 

 

But if it's just commerce regulation, intra- or inter-, then it'd be Federally Constitutional since the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce and health insurance qualifies (at least no one is making an argument to the contrary that I've seen, and it certainly didn't seem to be a central element of Clement's arguments).

 

If it is ok for states but not ok for Feds, it must be some other power being exercised.

 

It explicitly says in the US Constitution that congress CANNOT.

 

This is not a regulation of commerce, it's a creation of commerce.

Edited April 3, 201214 yr by Y2HH

But if it's just commerce regulation, intra- or inter-, then it'd be Federally Constitutional since the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce and health insurance qualifies (at least no one is making an argument to the contrary that I've seen, and it certainly didn't seem to be a central element of Clement's arguments).

 

If it is ok for states but not ok for Feds, it must be some other power being exercised.

You are talking in circles. The fact that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, does not mean that it can do ANYTHING IT WANTS in the field of commerce. In fact, I am sure the court would find that the federal government can indeed regulate health insurance. No one is even debating that, except you and the straw man.

 

What they are debating - and what you keep ignoring, over and over and over again - is if that power includes compulsion to buy a consumer product.

 

It explicitly says in the US Constitution that congress CANNOT.

 

This is not a regulation of commerce, it's a creation of commerce.

Actually, it is neither. Regulation of is OK (like saying, insurers can't post pictures of their patients or something), and even creation of (like creating an insurance pool market that people can choose to participate in). This is the forced private commerce (you HAVE to buy a product).

 

You are talking in circles. The fact that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, does not mean that it can do ANYTHING IT WANTS in the field of commerce. In fact, I am sure the court would find that the federal government can indeed regulate health insurance. No one is even debating that, except you and the straw man.

 

No one is saying that, not me nor the straw man. You're still talking past the point. States do not have unlimited rights.

 

What they are debating - and what you keep ignoring, over and over and over again - is if that power includes compulsion to buy a consumer product.

 

It's a pretty simple question. What sort of power is "compelling commerce"?

No one is saying that, not me nor the straw man. You're still talking past the point. States do not have unlimited rights.

 

States have the rights their Constitutions, and by proxy the federal government, grant to them. This has been said a zillion times, what are you missing here? The states' rights are limited only by federally enumerated powers, and the state's constitutional law.

 

It's a pretty simple question. What sort of power is "compelling commerce"?

Compelling commerce.

 

States have all rights not restricted by the federal govt.

 

Furthermore State Supreme Courts are the final say on the interpretation of the State's Constitution. Im sure there are cases where a State Supreme Court interprets basically the same language differently than the US Supreme Court.

 

 

States have the rights their Constitutions, and by proxy the federal government, grant to them. This has been said a zillion times, what are you missing here? The states' rights are limited only by federally enumerated powers, and the state's constitutional law.

 

I know. And I keep asking "what power is this, and where is it in Massachusetts' constitution?" You keep answering a question I'm not asking.

 

Compelling commerce.

 

Where is this enumerated in Mass's constitution? No one here may know this, but I was hoping maybe someone had read an article recently that discussed this. I would be surprised to learn if this was an explicitly enumerated power.

Furthermore State Supreme Courts are the final say on the interpretation of the State's Constitution.

 

Except for Bush v Gore!

I know. And I keep asking "what power is this, and where is it in Massachusetts' constitution?" You keep answering a question I'm not asking.

 

 

 

Where is this enumerated in Mass's constitution? No one here may know this, but I was hoping maybe someone had read an article recently that discussed this. I would be surprised to learn if this was an explicitly enumerated power.

It doesn't have to be. As Soxbadger said, and I've said, and others have said, the states have any powers they want to take that do not violate federal laws or the federal Constitution. The parameters of execution are delineated in their state constitutions.

 

Seriously, you are just not getting this, and I can't keep discussing it, just to tell you the same thing five times in five different ways of wording it.

 

Except for Bush v Gore!

 

Which wasn't a state election.

Which wasn't a state election.

 

Election rules are set by the various states and the SCOTUS overruled the SCOF's interpretations of Florida's election laws.

Election rules are set by the various states and the SCOTUS overruled the SCOF's interpretations of Florida's election laws.

 

Because it was for a federal election. If this was for a state senate seat, for example, SCOTUS wouldn't have intervened.

It doesn't have to be. As Soxbadger said, and I've said, and others have said, the states have any powers they want to take that do not violate federal laws or the federal Constitution. The parameters of execution are delineated in their state constitutions.

 

Seriously, you are just not getting this, and I can't keep discussing it, just to tell you the same thing five times in five different ways of wording it.

 

States do not have unlimited powers excepting those reserved by the federal government.

Bush v. Gore is an outlier, Im not even sure if its considered precedent.

Bush v. Gore is an outlier, Im not even sure if its considered precedent.

 

It explicitly states that it is not precedent.