how much can the state interfere with personal views
ESSAY RESPONSE
There are a few arguments that Adam Audrey could use against the FCSPA. One argument is that FCSPA is violating the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Having cosmetic surgery is a personal choice and a personal decision in which the individual makes a decision to change their appearance. Interfering with a patient’s decision to have cosmetic surgery is a local activity and not interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress can only regulate the decision to have cosmetic surgery if it can show that the decision has an effect on interstate commerce. Due to it being a noncommercial decision, the government has to show and prove in court that their effort to discourage cosmetic surgery has a direct and substantial effect on interstate commerce. If the government argues that their efforts to discourage cosmetic surgery will save the patient money which can be used on something else will be baseless and not hold up in court. A similar argument was made during the Lopez and Morrison case which was rejected. Congress did say that there was a major rise of cosmetic surgeries being performed in the country; however they are unable to link the rise of cosmetic surgery to a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Adam can argue that Congress is actually hurting the economic situation of the country by discouraging such surgeries. Also the federal government will be infringing into the state territory by controlling what the surgeons can and cannot practice. This will hold against the FCSPA and give Adam an upper hand.
In defense the HHS will fight in favor of FCSPA and argue that performing cosmetic surgery is an economic activity. The patient pays for the medical service and therefor performs a commercial exchange. Congress will have to prove that cosmetic surgery will have an economic effect on interstate commerce. It will have to show that by performing less cosmetic
There are a few arguments that Adam Audrey could use against the FCSPA. One argument is that FCSPA is violating the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Having cosmetic surgery is a personal choice and a personal decision in which the individual makes a decision to change their appearance. Interfering with a patient’s decision to have cosmetic surgery is a local activity and not interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress can only regulate the decision to have cosmetic surgery if it can show that the decision has an effect on interstate commerce. Due to it being a noncommercial decision, the government has to show and prove in court that their effort to discourage cosmetic surgery has a direct and substantial effect on interstate commerce. If the government argues that their efforts to discourage cosmetic surgery will save the patient money which can be used on something else will be baseless and not hold up in court. A similar argument was made during the Lopez and Morrison case which was rejected. Congress did say that there was a major rise of cosmetic surgeries being performed in the country; however they are unable to link the rise of cosmetic surgery to a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Adam can argue that Congress is actually hurting the economic situation of the country by discouraging such surgeries. Also the federal government will be infringing into the state territory by controlling what the surgeons can and cannot practice. This will hold against the FCSPA and give Adam an upper hand.
In defense the HHS will fight in favor of FCSPA and argue that performing cosmetic surgery is an economic activity. The patient pays for the medical service and therefor performs a commercial exchange. Congress will have to prove that cosmetic surgery will have an economic effect on interstate commerce. It will have to show that by performing less cosmetic