Reply to DC Health Exchange- all options are really expensive?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "DC Health Exchange- all options are really expensive?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
It is not the fault of the Supreme Court, [b]it is the fault of the Democrats in Congress who knowingly passed a law that was unconstitutional.  The Congress cannot mandate that the States implement programs.  It simply doesn't have the authority -- that is settled law.[/b]  They were warned, and they ignored the warnings, because they needed to use the budget reconciliation process to cram the law through, and that didn't give them time to fix it's many (known) flaws.  [/quote]

This is a novel view of the legal history of the ACA. From here (see p. 4; NFIB vs. Sebelius was the ACA case)

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8347.pdf

The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may attach conditions to the federal funds that it disburses to states under its spending power to ensure that funds are spent according to Congress’ vision of the general welfare. This power has been interpreted broadly to allow Congress to achieve policy objectives that it could not attain by legislating directly through its enumerated powers. While such conditions can be viewed as extending into areas traditionally encompassed by the states’ general police power to regulate the public’s health, safety and welfare, at the same time, “states have traditionally been considered by courts to be [sovereign governments and therefore] relatively resistant to such coercion.”

Prior to NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court upheld Congress’ power to fix the terms on which it disburses federal money to states as long as the condition satisfies four factors: it must be (1) related to the general welfare, (2) stated unambiguously, (3) clearly related to the program’s purpose, and (4) not otherwise unconstitutional. In only two earlier cases, one in the 1930s, and another in the 1980s, the Court noted as an aside that there possibly could be a future case in which a financial inducement offered by Congress could pass the point at which permissible pressure on states to legislate according to Congress’ policy objectives crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional coercion.

In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court for the first time found that a federal condition on a grant to states was unconstitutionally coercive.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics