- Posted April 7, 2012 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Is Obama's health care law constitutional?
If it's Constitutional, then explain....
If mandating the purchase of HC is OK, since it results in helping people who otherwise wouldn't be helped, it's allowed under regulating commerce, and it's an aspect of promoting the "general welfare," then why couldn't the Federal Government mandate the following for the exact same reasons?
- Kidney donations. "As of late 2010, a total of approximately 93,000 patients were registered on the kidney transplant waiting list at the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in the United States " The list would go down to zero if it was mandated that people hand over their extra kidney. For a cash reimbursement of course, to make it commerce.
- New car purchasing. Why bother with an auto bail out? Just mandate that people must purchase a new car from GM or Chrysler every three years or so. That's commerce, will save or create jobs, is good for the economy, etc.
- Open membership at Augusta National Golf Club. The Club no doubt purchases food, accepts sponsorships from companies, contributes to the local economy, has a financial arrangement with the PGA, and deals with national media. Each of those things, and others, affects commerce. So under anti-discrimination laws and the commerce clause. the Federal government should have the authority to mandate membership rules.
- Scholarships with no preconditions. If an organization awards scholarships, then they must do so without preconditions. No discrimination, no focusing a particular group, no disqualifications because of the applicant's attributes.
So what would be the difference and prevent the Obama Administration from mandating any or all of the above?