Health Care Question

[John Bickers]

But, imagine a law that said "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Nation, all citizens capable of bearing arms shall own at least one serviceable firearm."
 
Now, follow that provision up with either:
a) "Citizens not owning such a weapon shall pay $500 extra in income tax;" or
b) "Citizens complying with such rule shall have their income taxes reduced by $500."
 
Is there a problem with either?  Both? This is all that the HCR does, so I confess that I don't see the problem (or why we continue to struggle with the commerce clause, as if this were not a matter of taxation."

John Bickers
Salmon P. Chase College of Law
Northern Kentucky University 

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Eric Segall
Sent: Mon 3/22/2010 4:44 PM
To: 'CONLAWPROFS professors'; 'Christopher Green'; Edward A Hartnett
Subject: RE: Health Care Question



The Court would not uphold this requirement today. Imagine a New York Times Headline: "Supreme Court upholds federal requirement that everyone own a gun."

No chance.

Eric

>>> Edward A Hartnett <Edward.Hartnett at shu.edu> 3/22/2010 4:38 PM >>>
Please help me out with understanding this argument.

How does "calling forth" allow for an arms-buying requirement "all on its own"?



Edward A. Hartnett
Richard J. Hughes Professor
     for Constitutional and Public Law and Service
edward.hartnett at shu.edu
Phone: 973-642-8842
Fax:  973-642-8546
SSRN author page: http://ssrn.com/author=253335


-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Green
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 4:32 PM
To: 'CONLAWPROFS professors'
Subject: RE: Health Care Question

I/8/15 gives Congress power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
That seems to allow an arms-buying requirement all on its own, without
I/8/18, but the I/8/3 power "to regulate Commerce" seems to refer to the
regulation of pre-existing commercial activity. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100322/5089cb14/attachment.htm>