Andrew Koppelman: The 1918 Case That May Have Foreshadowed Obamacare's Demise | The New Republic

The New Republic:

The parallels between the child labor issue and the health care issue are remarkable. In both cases, the legislation in question was the product of a decades-long struggle.

Read the whole story at The New Republic

Comments

[GUITFIDDEL]

12:07 PM on 04/05/2012

It seems like the Right Wing electorate has dwindled down to nothing more than primarily hateful, bigoted, ignorant, paranoid people duped by the extremely wealthy 2%.



Obama 2012!!!

[crnadurham]

08:34 AM on 04/05/2012

this man lies so much and spews out misinformation so much his nose should be a yard long.

[GUITFIDDEL]

11:19 AM on 04/05/2012

crnadurham---- "This man lies so much and spews out misinformation so much his nose should be a yard long."

ROMNEY lies so much and spews out misinformation so much his nose should be a mile long and here's the reason he can get away with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

[snakeman]

08:26 AM on 04/05/2012

Hey supreme court, go ahead and strike down the healthcare act, I DARE YOU ! If you do you and the republicans will pay for generations.

[crnadurham]

08:35 AM on 04/05/2012

here we go again with chicago thug tactics. hit them with a ball bat until they see things your way. obama do they do it like this in kenya too.

[snakeman]

10:29 AM on 04/05/2012

I hope that you adon't hurt yourself after the president is re-elected ! Those that think like you are fading away everyday. Bye, Bye, bigot !

[Tom Servo]

08:17 PM on 04/04/2012

I read this scholar's article in it's entirety and it just doesn't make sense to me. It's got logic holes you could drive a truck through. It's a terrible comparison.

Sincerely TS
public school and community college graduate.

[Barbara0817]

08:15 PM on 04/04/2012

Does anyone here know what it say in the US Constitution. It says People of the United States oof America have the freedom to live and die as They see fit. Not as Obahma and Clinton and all the other elected official want .THis is one example of a grabby governemnt that want cotrol over life and death decisionsthat should be left up to the person not Uncle Sam

[spinnerator]

09:26 PM on 04/04/2012

Just so long as you sign a promissory note agreeing to never attend an Emergency Room for treatment of some illness unless you have the cash on hand to pay to the whole bill upfront.

[crnadurham]

08:37 AM on 04/05/2012

i work in the health care profession and no one is dismissed from the e.r. if care is needed care is given has always been that way. obama always likes to try to scare people into seeing things his way. the sky is falling the sky is falling

[LibRule]

01:52 PM on 04/05/2012

According to your simplistic analogy, there can be no laws. Good example of Republican wit.

[Exfl]

08:10 PM on 04/04/2012

Wow, this could be a big win for conservatives. Bring back child labor, kill health care, and you can pretty well assure that life expectancy will drop by ten years or so, eliminating the need for Social Security and Medicare.

[crnadurham]

08:39 AM on 04/05/2012

you speak as though supidity is a vertue

[Exfl]

08:46 AM on 04/05/2012

Without stupidity republicans would never get to 51%, so for them it is a VIRTUE,

[LibRule]

01:56 PM on 04/05/2012

You know, when you are going to snark at someone, well, that is a REALLY good time to use spell check.

[Anti Warrior]

07:36 PM on 04/04/2012

Like most supreme court cases this has nothing to do with the constitution or the law
as our constitution and our laws don't really match up at all, haven't for a long time

The reason they are going to strike it down is because it is very unpopular

[Barbara0817]

08:09 PM on 04/04/2012

The governemnt isnt suppose to be telling people They have to have health care insurance, or be fined or go to jail;. This is a free country if We dont think We need health care Why should We be forced to buy it, next They will be making us eat wheat grem instead of poatoes. Or go to jail, enough is enough. Why dont They make overeating a crime and put all the fat people the smokers and the drinkers in jail this is Our right and They have no right to make us do anything. , or dtop Us from doing anything. If They really wanted to change health care for the better . They could make it simple, Just give coverage to the sick people that dont have coverage and leave eveyone else alone.

[TheBluesGuy]

11:10 PM on 04/04/2012

In the first place, no one is threatened with jail. The law permits a fine to be charged.

But more importantly, I don't want to support war. My country keeps taxing me and waging war. My neighbor doesn't want to pay for Interstate Highways, but he (and you, and I) pay taxes for that, too.

I understand that in Conservative speak it means "you win," but sometimes the price of civilization is compromise.

[LibRule]

01:57 PM on 04/05/2012

If you think 'this is a free country', try walking across the street in the middle of the block with a policeman around. This is a country of LAWS, AHCA is one of them.

[crnadurham]

08:40 AM on 04/05/2012

it will be struck down because it should be.

[jarjax1632b]

07:23 PM on 04/04/2012

Just scrap the GD mandate and keep the rest. In the name of the baby jesus i commandeth thee!

[Barbara0817]

08:11 PM on 04/04/2012

Amen too much government control is never good for a free people.THis is not communist Russia.Wee all see how that worked dont We ?

[TheBluesGuy]

11:12 PM on 04/04/2012

"Amen too much government control is never good for a free people.THis is not communist Russia.Wee all see how that worked dont We ?"
__________

Yes. They, too, were bankrupted by an excessively Conservative government.

[LibRule]

01:59 PM on 04/05/2012

Reading comp fail. He said keep the law.

[crnadurham]

08:40 AM on 04/05/2012

are you on drugs or just forgot to take your insulin

[fishin4u]

07:20 PM on 04/04/2012

If you read through all of the parts of this"law", all enforcement powers will come to the Sec of Health Sabilias.
Another (to use a recent statement by O) "UNELECTED Govt" official.

FISH..................

[LibRule]

02:00 PM on 04/05/2012

And she answers to congress. Get a clue.

[CSDofNM]

07:05 PM on 04/04/2012

"Century-Old Case May Have Foreshadowed Obamacare's Demise"

Recent cases predict exactly the opposite. Antonin Scalia said in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005): [Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”]

Scalia argues that even non-economic activity is within the reach of the commerce clause, much less the health care industry which is 1/6 of our economy. Vast parts of the bill do exactly that, as shown in "Affordable Care Act Repeal Would Have Immediate Consequences" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/affordable-care-act-repeal_n_1400009.html

Koppelman ignores the judicial activism of the 1930's Supreme Court, the "stitch in time that saved nine" or the preceding precedent (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/).

There is no basis for any decision OTHER THAN to uphold the statute.

[crnadurham]

08:42 AM on 04/05/2012

the basis is this you can't make people in america buy a toy they don't like. ss is different

[CSDofNM]

04:46 PM on 04/05/2012

You are wrong, it isn't buying a toy. It is life and death, and the "general welfare" from the preamble to the Constitution.

When you go to a different state, if you get sick, or in an accident, that is a decision to be purely left to the states? Or does the federal government have something to say about it?

When Republican't governors cut kids of Medicaid, so we have to pay for their emergency care TWICE as taxpayers (once for the Medicaid they reallocated because it was in a block grant, once when they were dying in the emergency room) the federal government has nothing to say about it? (see http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/cityhall/Tuesdays-DN-Corbett-cuts-89000-kids-from-Medicaid.html)

Your Faux Noise lies don't work here, we know the truth.

[Sir Guest-a-Lot]

07:03 PM on 04/04/2012

"If the law is upheld, no one is going to be forced to buy broccoli."

Well, at least Mr. Koppelman acknowledges that if Congress has the power to mandate the purchase of insurance it has the similar power to mandate the purchase of broccoli, gym memberships, automobiles, etc. For conservative jurists, this merely illustrates how far the fabric of the Commerce Clause has been stretched over the years. Neither the Framers nor the citizenry would have understood the Commerce Clause, which refers to "regulating" commerce, to grant Congress the power to mandate purchases and require every single person's participation in a market.

For Mr. Koppelman, he seems to have no problem with this fact and merely falls back upon the uncomfortable position that Congress is unlikely to force people to buy broccoli. In that, he may be right. But what happens the next time union contracts start to pull down GM and Chrysler? Mandating the purchase of automobiles from companies owned in part by the government may be a "sensible" measure to bolster that market. Or what if Congress decides to stabilize gas prices through a scheme of mandatory supply and mandatory purchases? Or what if Congress seeks to artificially bolster the market for clean technology by mandating the purchase of electric automobiles or environmental-friendly appliances?

If Congress has the power to mandate purchases under the Commerce Clause, all it means is that it is one step closer to becoming a central planner.

[Anti Warrior]

07:38 PM on 04/04/2012

the automobile one has already happened

try to register a coal powered car

[Sir Guest-a-Lot]

07:46 PM on 04/04/2012

The government has already mandated that we buy coal-powered cars? I must have missed that memo.

[crnadurham]

08:43 AM on 04/05/2012

don't you get it that is all obama wants complete control of everything we do eat and screw.

[Sir Guest-a-Lot]

02:42 PM on 04/05/2012

I fear that it's remarkably short-sighted to pin this on Obama. He is just one person. If he is defeated in 2012, it won't make the threat of unbridled governmental power go away. This threat can pop up in any subsequent year - maybe in 4 years, maybe in 40. The point is that the progressives seek to expand the power of government so that it can forcefully impose an absolute equality on all of us. This is their long term goal. Some people make more money than others - this must be stopped. Some people have better health care - this must be ended. Some people are more qualified for certain jobs - this must be fixed. And their "solution" for these perceived problems is not to allow greater freedom and more opportunity, but to use government coercion to forcefully redistribute resources to fit their own ideals. This is the vision that motivates them, and only the Constitution stands in their way of expanding the power of the federal government to impose their will.

[mstock57]

07:02 PM on 04/04/2012

So the opponents of healthcare reform have to cite a nearly hundred year old case as a precident? Sad.

[marbiol]

07:17 PM on 04/04/2012

its worse than that!!! they ultimately go back to 1803!!! 1803!! just find a case where the scotus was able to overturn a law passed by a majority of the democrat elected representatives. talk about a reach!!

[Sir Guest-a-Lot]

07:52 PM on 04/04/2012

I can't tell whether you are using sarcasm or not. Assuming you are, well done.

[crnadurham]

08:45 AM on 04/05/2012

the futher you go back in history the closer you get to what the founding fathers actually wanted.

[mstock57]

09:28 AM on 04/05/2012

Yeah like slavery.

[listentome]

06:45 PM on 04/04/2012

The 1918 Case That May Have Foreshadowed Obamacare's Demise? The last time I checked the SCOTUS was still in deliberation.

[wonketteRAWKS]

06:26 PM on 04/04/2012

But didn't the constitutional scholar refer to Lochner vs. New York (1905) saying "going back to the 1930s" and "unprecedented" when there is ample evidence to dispute that?

[jackson47]

05:54 PM on 04/04/2012

SCOTUS then and now was the friend of corporations. My guess there are corporations out there that would love to see child labor laws removed for a disposable source of labor.