- Click here for the article.
If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t lurched so far to the right under former President Donald Trump, there’s a good chance the Texas Legislature may have never tried to pass the bill it voted out last night.
It was in 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot enforce immigration laws just because they don’t think the federal government is doing it well enough. Yet, reporter Jasper Scherer writes that the Texas House voted anyhow to pass legislation that would allow Texas law enforcement to arrest people they suspect to have crossed the border illegally and order them back to Mexico.
Democrats, civil rights groups and even some Republicans have warned the bill flat out conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and that 2012 Supreme Court ruling.
But that may be the point. Since that 2012 ruling, Trump was able to add Amy Coney Barrett, Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. Some Republicans are convinced if they could get the issue to the Supreme Court again, the more conservative justices might just flip the 5 to 3 ruling in 2012, much like what happened last year with the challenge to Roe v Wade.
During a contentious debate on the Texas House floor, state Rep. Victoria Neave Criado, a Dallas Democrat, accused Republicans of engineering the bill for that purpose, a charge state Rep. David Spiller, the North Texas Republican who led the bill, denied.
But when the same bill cleared the Texas Senate last week, state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, acknowledged it is “testing and pushing envelopes.”
The ACLU of Texas has already vowed to sue the state over the bill if Gov. Greg Abbott signs the it into law as he has promised to do. And now comes word Mexico opposes the legislation, which raises questions about how Texas would enforce the law if Mexico blocks people from other countries from reentering that nation.
__________
For more, click here: Texas legislators approve bill allowing police to arrest people who cross the border illegally.
For the bill itself, click here: SB4 (88-4)
Showing posts with label enumerated power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enumerated power. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Friday, October 8, 2010
A District Court Judge Finds the Individual Mandate Constitutional
Here's huge -- and relevant -- news. A district court judge has ruled that the individual mandate in the recently passed health care law does fall under the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Pay attention 2301s:
From Ezra Klein:
A district court judge has ruled the individual mandate is constitutional, reports N.C. Aizenman: "Other federal courts have already dismissed some challenges to the law on technical grounds - ruling, for instance, that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the decision issued Thursday by Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan is the first to reject a claim based on the merits, marking a notable victory for the Obama administration...Steeh found that 'far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars...onto other market participants.'"
- Here's the opinion...
...and a key quote from it:
“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the court’s task “is a modest one.” The court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”
There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.
- From the NYT.
- Here's a decision from a previous case where the law was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Now it will go on to higher level appelate courts further consideration. Pay attention 2302s!
From Ezra Klein:
A district court judge has ruled the individual mandate is constitutional, reports N.C. Aizenman: "Other federal courts have already dismissed some challenges to the law on technical grounds - ruling, for instance, that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the decision issued Thursday by Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan is the first to reject a claim based on the merits, marking a notable victory for the Obama administration...Steeh found that 'far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars...onto other market participants.'"
- Here's the opinion...
...and a key quote from it:
“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the court’s task “is a modest one.” The court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”
There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.
- From the NYT.
- Here's a decision from a previous case where the law was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Now it will go on to higher level appelate courts further consideration. Pay attention 2302s!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Two Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Sentencing
In one, Graham v. Florida, the court decided 6-3 that life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of crimes less than murder was cruel and unusual punishment which violated the eighth amendment.
In the other, United States v. Comstock, a 7-2 court stated the Congress had the authority to allow continued confinement of some sex offenders who had completed their sentences, even though this power is not an enumerated (or delegated) power granted to Congress in Article One. It was argued on the basis of the necessary and proper clause, though the dissent wondered necessary and proper to do what?
In the other, United States v. Comstock, a 7-2 court stated the Congress had the authority to allow continued confinement of some sex offenders who had completed their sentences, even though this power is not an enumerated (or delegated) power granted to Congress in Article One. It was argued on the basis of the necessary and proper clause, though the dissent wondered necessary and proper to do what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)