Promoting the Go Green Policy Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Promoting the Go Green Policy - Research Paper Example The go green policy was implemented with the objective of saving the environment, by restricting the use of inorganic products. Â  Some scholars have attempted to clear this confusion by defining green or environmental – friendly products as goods that attempt to improve or protect the natural environment. Such preservation or protection is to be achieved by conserving resources and energy while mitigating or eliminating the utilization of pollution, toxic agents and waste (Dangelico & Pujari, 2010, p. 472). The recent natural calamities that afflicted the American continent compelled governments to focus on environmental issues. One of the most important outcomes of environmental damage is climate change. Scholars like Glave have contended that governments and people should act immediately to save the environment for the benefit of future generations (McRae, 2007, p. 133). In the absence of such measures, the future generations will inherit a planet that is beset with defore station, water and air pollution, and unpredictable weather patterns. Going green or making decisions that are friendly towards the environment require the government and the people to play an active part in protecting the earth from degradation, due to human activities (McRae, 2007, p. 133). In order to promote the go green policy, the US government has enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under the provisions of this act, the Internal Revenue Service provides a number of tax benefits to people who purchase energy-efficient appliances (McRae, 2007, p. 133).

Constitution The Mandate that Individuals buy Health Insurance Research Paper

Constitution The Mandate that Individuals buy Health Insurance - Research Paper Example s lacked the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty for the failure (Rourke, 2012, p.3). According to the proponents of the issue, the mandate modifies the internal Revenue Code and thus constitutes a tax. It, therefore, offers Americans a choice to either purchase health insurance cover or pay a tax equal to the cost of purchasing health insurance. However, people exempted from the tax include the poor, dependents, military personnel, citizens living overseas, or individuals with a religious objection (Bluestein, 2011, p.27). This subsidizes the government’s health care program hence making it cheaper both to the government and health insurance companies as well as to families wishing to buy a health insurance. However, the introduction of the penalty for those with no health care insurance is unconstitutional since it makes Americans pay taxes. The central issue relates to the Commerce Clause. Congress argues that the Commerce Clause empowers it to compel private citizens not currently involved in commercial activity, to buy insurance from private dealers or pay a penalty to the national government. However, the Congress has no powers through the Commerce Clause to enact laws imposing such penalty (The Editors, 2010, p. 2). By passing the individual mandate and penalty as components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010 (PPAA), Congress exceeded the powers granted by the constitution. This is because resolving such a suit remains the role of the federal courts as noted by O Conor in New York v United States (1992). This is the traditional and foundational function of the federal courts (Barnett, Stewart & Gaziano, 2009, p. 1). However, since no Congress has ever tried to apply the Commercial Clause in the issue of APPA casts great doubt as to whether Congress has the authority to do the same. The Supreme Court in Printz v United States (1997) noted the same; the reality