Can the Feds force us to buy a service?

[Mohawk5]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

[SFC(R)L]

No.

My income is private property and they may not deprive me of it without due process and fair compensation.

[HoracioMendez]

See: Social Security.

[Maelstrom]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

No.

It amounts to a Bill of Attainder. It's one of the reasons the American government cannot legitimately own any business.

[Maelstrom]

See: Social Security.

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.

[Mohawk5]

So the threat to force citizens to buy health insurance is Un-Constitutional?

[Mohawk5]

See: Social Security.


Sorry I won't see a dime of the money that I have put into SS.

:))

[zantax]

Can they? Sure, is it constitutional? That's a different question.

[Mohawk5]

Can they? Sure, is it constitutional? That's a different question.


Is it Un-Constitutional to force us?

[zantax]

Is it Un-Constitutional to force us?

Yes, but it only matters if the SCOTUS happens to agree.

[Rurudyne]

No.

There is no delegated power for the federal to require any person living among the several States to have to buy or sell anything.

This is a 10th Amendment issue.

Not that such matters to the people in DC, considering unconstitutional programs ranging which we could start listing at: Social Security.

[SFC(R)L]

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.

And erroneously so.

[Maelstrom]

Yes, but it only matters if the SCOTUS happens to agree.

I'd like to help clarify your point.

The SCOTUS in your sentence above, would be agreeing with the Constitution, not you, zantax the poster.

[HoracioMendez]

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.
And they'll find a way around it like they did by claiming social security as a tax. That was all I was getting at.

[Maelstrom]

And erroneously so.

As I recall from the bad ruling: If Social Security were NOT merely a tax, it would be unconstitutional.

[DRS]

What happens if you do not buy food or clothes for your kids?

[ChaosControl]

They already do.
Social security is an insurance they force on us. Just because it is paid for via FICA taxes doesn't make it any different. Same with medicare. Heck same with pretty much everything the government does.

So 'can' they? Yes.
Should they? Well that is the real question now isn't it.

[Maelstrom]

And they'll find a way around it like they did by claiming social security as a tax. That was all I was getting at.

That would mean that our government had taken a step too obviously as a rogue government than people will stand for, even today.

I don't think so.

[Rurudyne]

I'd like to help clarify your point.

The SCOTUS in your sentence above, would be agreeing with the Constitution, not you, zantax the poster.
SCOTUS agrees with the Constitution?

No, it's more like they write their margin notes in crayon and then demand that everyone respect those margin scrawls instead — a power they do not lawfully have.

[Maelstrom]

What happens if you do not buy food or clothes for your kids?

With today's government?

We can force you to pay for them, using the government as our weapon of choice.

[ArmyMAJretired]

What happens if you do not buy food or clothes for your kids?

You are a caveman.

[pattyk]

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.

and that's what healthcare will be. you don't buy it, you pay a tax.

[gwhughes]

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.

Could it be ruled by the courts that the fine imposed by refusing to have insurance is also a tax?

[Mohawk5]

Yes, but it only matters if the SCOTUS happens to agree.


Why does it only matter if it has gone to court? I could care less what SCOTUS has to say if it's not powered to the feds by the Constitution.

[Maelstrom]

Could it be ruled by the courts that the fine imposed by refusing to have insurance is also a tax?

With enough liberals on the courts, the law of gravity could be overturned, in the legal sense.

[aep1974]

What happens if you do not buy food or clothes for your kids?

You get your kids taken away from you.

The government doesn't FORCE you to buy food or clothes for your kids, nor should they. Good parenting should compel you to do those things. But if you neglect your children, you'll be in trouble.

Nice try.

[ArmyMAJretired]

If a law is passed that mandates Americans buy a health insurance policy, I hope someone challenges it in the courts.

Nancy Pelosi said yeterday 96% of Americans would be covered.

Does that mean 4% would be law breakers? What would she do to them. That must be somewhere in the 1900 pages!

[Mohawk5]

What happens if you do not buy food or clothes for your kids?

Why would you do that?

[Rurudyne]

As I recall from the bad ruling: If Social Security were NOT merely a tax, it would be unconstitutional.
But Social Security is also a program that gives money to individuals apart from any legal consideration such as actually having been in the employ of the federal government.

I wonder how the lawless Court danced around that?

[mboncher]

It's unconstitutional for the federal government to do so. So, if P-BO does sign such a thing into law, the supreme court is the only thing that can stop it. If it doesn't, we're sooooo screwwwwwwwd.

Then revolution is the only way to change. Personally, I'd rather see something happen of a more peaceful variety first.

[The Bos'un]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.
Yes they can. Obama, Pelosi, and the DNC say YES. Obamacare, get over it already......

[RickRhetoric]

No.

My income is private property and they may not deprive me of it without due process and fair compensation.

It is really cool that you do not have to pay taxes. More power to you! Yay! My income has never been my private property. Federal, state and locals governments have always taken a big chunk of it ... but they use it to buy a service for me -- more government. I likes government.

[aep1974]

Why does it only matter if it has gone to court? I could care less what SCOTUS has to say if it's not powered to the feds by the Constitution.

I think he was being sarcastic. There's another thread floating around about Robert Gibbs saying that the Constitution doesn't matter if the court hasn't ruled on a particular amendment.

[EnchantedFrog]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

"Are you serious? Are you serious" - Nancy Pelosi

[The Bos'un]

Prove it is unconstitutional and a supreme court ruling will probably say it is not unconstitutional (as long as the court is involved with the decision making process). Black robe judges, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama rule.....

[Mohawk5]

I think he was being sarcastic. There's another thread floating around about Robert Gibbs saying that the Constitution doesn't matter if the court hasn't ruled on a particular amendment.


Ah sorry I had not heard about the PS's latest blunder.

Sorry.

[Bluesgtr44]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

If no one challenges it, they can do it! So, what entity is going to challenge the constitutionality of all this crap the President is trying to get through. The SCOTUS is looking like a bit of swing in the right direction for the short term....

[zantax]

I'm willing to bet the court will not find it to be unconstitutional, FDR taught them what happens when the court tries to reign in a popular democrat.

[Bluesgtr44]

"Are you serious? Are you serious" - Nancy Pelosi

She knows if it's challenged they could be in trouble.......

[SFC(R)L]

If a law is passed that mandates Americans buy a health insurance policy, I hope someone challenges it in the courts.

Nancy Pelosi said yeterday 96% of Americans would be covered.

Does that mean 4% would be law breakers? What would she do to them. That must be somewhere in the 1900 pages!

96% of the population is covered now

the bill is Unconstitutional and may be ignored with impunity

[Bluesgtr44]

Prove it is unconstitutional and a supreme court ruling will probably say it is not unconstitutional (as long as the court is involved with the decision making process). Black robe judges, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama rule.....

Make 'em say it! If we let this administration appoint another one before challenging this.....then what you say may hold water.

[Mohawk5]

If no one challenges it, they can do it! So, what entity is going to challenge the constitutionality of all this crap the President is trying to get through. The SCOTUS is looking like a bit of swing in the right direction for the short term....


How would an everyday people do this. We don't have the money to fight this system.

[Bluesgtr44]

I think he was being sarcastic. There's another thread floating around about Robert Gibbs saying that the Constitution doesn't matter if the court hasn't ruled on a particular amendment.

The SCOTUS is where constitutional challenges are taken......c'mon people......

[Jabbamagnus]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

Through taxation you will pay for a service, now they cannot force you to use that service.

[zantax]

She knows if it's challenged they could be in trouble.......


Why would she care? Do you think democrats will care if young people aren't forced to buy insurance? Heck no, not as long as they get the public option passed, they'll just get the money from the evil "rich" instead, it's not like they'll shrug and repeal it.

[Bluesgtr44]

How would an everyday people do this. We don't have the money to fight this system.

It doesn't cost all that much. Now how many small businesses could pull together some resources and challenge this? There should be plenty. It's been done before without breaking the bank......and the alternative would be so much more costly.

[Bluesgtr44]

Why would she care? Do you think democrats will care if young people aren't forced to buy insurance? Heck no, not as long as they get the public option passed, they'll just get the money from the evil "rich" instead, it's not like they'll shrug and repeal it.

That would be the challenge......they can't force this. And if they go a bit deeper on the challenge it may lay that big rock on their "roads paved with gold".

[zantax]

It doesn't cost all that much. Now how many small businesses could pull together some resources and challenge this? There should be plenty. It's been done before without breaking the bank......and the alternative would be so much more costly.


And what will they have accomplished? Umm, ensuring they have to pick up the tab instead of the people who don't want to buy it? Yay, victory.

[Bluesgtr44]

Originally Posted by Mohawk5 View Post
I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

I know of none......Savage had a good spot on this yesterday. He mentioned this could really put a wrench in their "takeover" plans. But, it has to be challenged. No challenge......no foul.....

[Mohawk5]

And what will they have accomplished? Umm, ensuring they have to pick up the tab instead of the people who don't want to buy it? Yay, victory.


Is it really true that the majority of Americans want public run HC?

[Mohawk5]

I know of none......Savage had a good spot on this yesterday. He mentioned this could really put a wrench in their "takeover" plans. But, it has to be challenged. No challenge......no foul.....


Can you challenge it before it's passed? Does it have to be signed by the POTUS in order to be challenged?

[rckirby]

Good piece in WSJ from last month:

....snip...Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care. (emphasis mine)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html

[Mohawk5]

Good piece in WSJ from last month:

(emphasis mine)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html


Thanks for the information.

[Bluesgtr44]

And what will they have accomplished? Umm, ensuring they have to pick up the tab instead of the people who don't want to buy it? Yay, victory.

So, medicare and medicaid aren't already considered "picking up the tab"? I didn't know people were already paying premiums for that medicaid insurance.....not trying to be snotty here, I know where your coming from. I just know if we don't even try we gain nothing.

[Bluesgtr44]

Can you challenge it before it's passed? Does it have to be signed by the POTUS in order to be challenged?

Not sure....caught him mid stream on this one. he mentioned an old case where something was trying to be shoved through and like 4 guys who ran a shop in NYC challenged it to the SCOTUS and won! It changed everything for the whole country. I think this would be an awesome time to do that with the make-up of the court right now.

[Bluesgtr44]

Good piece in WSJ from last month:

(emphasis mine)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html

I agree with this synopsis. And I want that "Kodak moment" of Pelosi's face when the verdict is read......I'd pay 10 bucks for it!

[zantax]

So, medicare and medicaid aren't already considered "picking up the tab"? I didn't know people were already paying premiums for that medicaid insurance.....not trying to be snotty here, I know where your coming from. I just know if we don't even try we gain nothing.


My point was, that invalidating their ability to make people buy insurance will not result in a repeal of their health reform as it's only one small piece of that reform. You might get rid of that mandate but it won't get rid of the overall program, merely excuse some people from paying for it, resulting in others having to pick up the tab. It might be a victory but not a significant one in my book.

[Mohawk5]

Not sure....caught him mid stream on this one. he mentioned an old case where something was trying to be shoved through and like 4 guys who ran a shop in NYC challenged it to the SCOTUS and won! It changed everything for the whole country. I think this would be an awesome time to do that with the make-up of the court right now.


Wouldn't it have to go through the lower courts first?

[Free Market Capitalist]

Any government can always force the minority to go along with the majority.... that's how government works unfortunately... doesn't make it right.

[Bluesgtr44]

My point was, that invalidating their ability to make people buy insurance will not result in a repeal of their health reform as it's only one small piece of that reform. You might get rid of that mandate but it won't get rid of the overall program, merely excuse some people from paying for it, resulting in others having to pick up the tab. It might be a victory but not a significant one in my book.

I see it as leaving it right where it is......the majority of those don't pay anyway. Just ask the Hospitals. It would depend on how it was challenged. We have some pretty bright minds out there that could figure this one out. Now, my concern is if no one wants to pick it up and we don't get a real reason why..........I think it would be because it closes the gate for everybody.....including the republicans (not to be confused with conservatives).

[Bluesgtr44]

Wouldn't it have to go through the lower courts first?

It might, but it would only be the Fed courts and there would be an appeals system. I know there are those out there who are bright enough to discuss this (Levin) and I would really like to hear more about it.

[Cutiepie]

everyone that drives a vehicle is suppose to have auto insurance but they don't. What happens to them? Nothing. In other words if enough of us stand up together then this piece of crap won't pass.


Heck, I already think it won't pass b/c the dems can't get everyone in their own party on board with them.

[Bluesgtr44]

Any government can always force the minority to go along with the majority.... that's how government works unfortunately... doesn't make it right.

I think that's what states rights were about......not trying to make us that "one size fits all" society that has historically failed...rather consistently.

[Free Market Capitalist]

You could make the arguement that the feds did not force us to pay for a service previously....

we get a job.... we pay social security...
we get a car.... we pay insurance...

NOW we live and breathe, we pay for health insurance. There is no way to opt out of breathing... I can choose not to work, or not to drive a car.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I think that's what states rights were about......not trying to make us that "one size fits all" society that has historically failed...rather consistently.

Yes you're right... but again the majority of citizens allowed the federal government to **** all over states rights. What can you do? We Americans are stupid.

[Smoove06CSRT]

LOL.. Obama Ran on the Answer....

"YES WE CAN"

Re- Elect NO one in 2010 and 2012

[Cutiepie]

You could make the arguement that the feds did not force us to pay for a service previously....

we get a job.... we pay social security...
we get a car.... we pay insurance...

NOW we live and breathe, we pay for health insurance. There is no way to opt out of breathing... I can choose not to work, or not to drive a car.




and you can choose NOT to have health insurance. It's your body your choice. It is NOT up to GObama! the idiot or the congress critter's.

[Bluesgtr44]

Yes you're right... but again the majority of citizens allowed the federal government to **** all over states rights. What can you do? We Americans are stupid.

History seems to indicate that a big part of that happened during the second to last recession...the one in the 30's. Seems they want to just scream past the one in the late 70's to early 80's. But, I'm sure the thinking back then was pretty similiar to "we can't let a good crisis go to waste" mentality and those were liberal thinkers back then. Yeah, stupid......

[AvgGuyIA]

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.Medicare Part D is totally voluntary, so is it really unconstitutional like some people claim?

[johnrocks]

and you can choose NOT to have health insurance. It's your body your choice. It is NOT up to GObama! the idiot or the congress critter's.

Most will take the path of least resistance though, they'll easily get the non insurable ones on that can't get health insurance, the ones whose insurance is going higher and the ones who would not break a law that said they had to get up at 6a.m. and crow each morning,much less a law like this so it'll leave the few who are young and healthy and oblivious to the law and folks like you. Me, I'll be selling mandated insurance right and left like pancakes flying out of a Kiwanis Club fundraising operation:mrgreen:

[johnrocks]

Medicare Part D is totally voluntary, so is it really unconstitutional like some people claim?

Medicare Part A isn't though for the vast majority and D as well as C is nothing but a hugh govt. subsidy to the pharmaceutical and insurance corporations.

[Bluesgtr44]

Medicare Part D is totally voluntary, so is it really unconstitutional like some people claim?

Hey, what were the CEO bonuses paid out to that medicare part D plan last year? I'm sure it made gazillions!

[AvgGuyIA]

If no one challenges it, they can do it! So, what entity is going to challenge the constitutionality of all this crap the President is trying to get through. The SCOTUS is looking like a bit of swing in the right direction for the short term....The ACLJ is going to fight it in the Supreme Court if Obama signs his HellCare Bill.

[deportalllibs]

They cannot 'force' you to vote for them in 2010 or 2012, soon the smackdown on the libs running amok begins!

[AvgGuyIA]

They cannot 'force' you to vote for them in 2010 or 2012, soon the smackdown on the libs running amok begins!And it is going to be a smack down of epic proportions! The 2009 Liberal Congress can pass this ****, but they can't control what a 2011 Conservative Congress does - even Obama if we have enough votes to override any veto of his.

[Apatriot]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

I would imagine their argument is that they aren't forcing you to buy a service. They are just taxing you to recoop costs that they have to pay for your public option insurance.

[Rurudyne]

Medicare Part D is totally voluntary, so is it really unconstitutional like some people claim?
The issue isn't if it is voluntary.

It is if there is a delegated power for the function.

If there is not then the 10th Amendment reserves such a power to the several States or the people.

As Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury: "Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."

That there are vested Powers to secure the general Welfare (in A1:S8 these start at "To regulate Commerce with ..." and include those including "To constitute Tribunals ...") demonstrates that these are THE vested Powers, and that others not delegated simply are not possessed. To assert otherwise is to render this enumeration of Power a superfluity with no genuine purpose.

Marshall again in a passage that has general application though its specific context is the Judiciary Act: "If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance."

The 'liberal constitution' is form without substance, a surplusage of words by the terms of their own ideology.

[Rurudyne]

I would imagine their argument is that they aren't forcing you to buy a service. They are just taxing you to recoop costs that they have to pay for your public option insurance.
Sure they can tax.

They just can't spend in this fashion. ;)

[Cutiepie]

Most will take the path of least resistance though, they'll easily get the non insurable ones on that can't get health insurance, the ones whose insurance is going higher and the ones who would not break a law that said they had to get up at 6a.m. and crow each morning,much less a law like this so it'll leave the few who are young and healthy and oblivious to the law and folks like you. Me, I'll be selling mandated insurance right and left like pancakes flying out of a Kiwanis Club fundraising operation:mrgreen:




My husband and I have health insurance so I am not worried. But, we did go without it for over ten years. Why? Because that was what we wanted. We could afford it, but we didn't want it. There are thousands of people out there that can afford it and they just don't want it. There are thousands of people out there that are like me and they have an "I double dare you to make me have health insurance" attitude. There are not enough jails in this country to jail everyone. They won't be able to find out who has it and who doesn't. Like now, they don't know who has auto insurance and who doesn't.

[Obummer]

All the federal government has to do is tell the states that the have to pass some law requiring their citizens to buy insurance or lose federal funding.

Game-Set-Match....bypass the constitution all together.

[Rurudyne]

All the federal government has to do is tell the states that the have to pass some law requiring their citizens to buy insurance or lose federal funding.

Game-Set-Match....bypass the constitution all together.
This too should be unconstitutional, for to lack lawful authority to act on your own should also be to lack even the lawful power to speak to a subject matter in any way.

[johnrocks]

All the federal government has to do is tell the states that the have to pass some law requiring their citizens to buy insurance or lose federal funding.

Game-Set-Match....bypass the constitution all together.

That has happened before, that is how Louisiana passed a 21 age limit for alcohol, do it or lose highway funding. Tricky bastards:mad:

[Cutiepie]

That has happened before, that is how Louisiana passed a 21 age limit for alcohol, do it or lose highway funding. Tricky bastards:mad:




Yet, I bet you anything there are still people who drink alcohol when they are teens. The law didn't stop them period.

[Jacksmyname]

There are not enough jails in this country to jail everyone. They won't be able to find out who has it and who doesn't. Like now, they don't know who has auto insurance and who doesn't.

From what I understand, it won't be a matter of being put in jail if you don't buy insurance.
It's going to be the IRS handling it. When doing your tax return, you'll have to provide proof of health insurance. If not, your taxes go up.
If you don't pay that tax, prepare to deal with the IRS, which in my opinion is the modern day, American version of the Gestapo.

I've read opinions that say the SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional, and opinions that say the opposite.
Judge Napalitano has said that the government can't force people to buy anything.
As AvgGuyIA posted above, ACLJ is already preparing to fight this abomination if it passes.

[Safiel]

The government forces us to buy that crappy piece of **** Old Age and Survivors Insurance garbage.

[johnrocks]

Yet, I bet you anything there are still people who drink alcohol when they are teens. The law didn't stop them period.

True, no more than Marijuana laws work, a huge waste of money and trampling on rights.

[Cutiepie]

From what I understand, it won't be a matter of being put in jail if you don't buy insurance.
It's going to be the IRS handling it. When doing your tax return, you'll have to provide proof of health insurance. If not, your taxes go up.
If you don't pay that tax, prepare to deal with the IRS, which in my opinion is the modern day, American version of the Gestapo.

I've read opinions that say the SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional, and opinions that say the opposite.
Judge Napalitano has said that the government can't force people to buy anything.
As AvgGuyIA posted above, ACLJ is already preparing to fight this abomination if it passes.




well, how many people lie on their tax forms? I rest my case. They are going to have a very hard time trying to prove that people don't have health insurance. People lie about auto insurance, people lie on their tax forms. This won't be any different.

I do believe that the SCOTUS will rule it UnConstitutional and to see the look on plastic face Pelosi's would be priceless.

[zantax]

True, no more than Marijuana laws work, a huge waste of money and trampling on rights.


I have stated my terms for voting of it's legalization many times but I'll repeat them, the death penalty for anyone convicted of supplying it to a minor and that includes allowing your stash to be pilfered by your kids who then give it to mine.

[Cutiepie]

The government forces us to buy that crappy piece of **** Old Age and Survivors Insurance garbage.



Huh? The government forces you to buy that? My parents don't have that. They have regular health insurance. My dad is 71 and my mom is 69.

[Mohawk5]

and you can choose NOT to have health insurance. It's your body your choice. It is NOT up to GObama! the idiot or the congress critter's.


Exactly! If I want to drink coke by the two liter and eat lard cut right of the cow it's my business!

[Cutiepie]

I have stated my terms for voting of it's legalization many times but I'll repeat them, the death penalty for anyone convicted of supplying it to a minor and that includes allowing your stash to be pilfered by your kids who then give it to mine.



Zantax, I don't supply any alcohol or pot to any kids period. I was just making a point that they pass laws but there are thousands of people who do not obey the law which means there will be thousands of people who will not obey this law that they are going to try and ram down our throats.

[zantax]

Zantax, I don't supply any alcohol or pot to any kids period. I was just making a point that they pass laws but there are thousands of people who do not obey the law which means there will be thousands of people who will not obey this law that they are going to try and ram down our throats.

I was responding to John who wants it legalized.

[Mohawk5]

I would imagine their argument is that they aren't forcing you to buy a service. They are just taxing you to recoop costs that they have to pay for your public option insurance.


I don't need a public option for insurance.

[zantax]

How many of you will be joining me in chaining yourselves to something in protest if you end up on government health insurance?

[Mohawk5]

All the federal government has to do is tell the states that the have to pass some law requiring their citizens to buy insurance or lose federal funding.

Game-Set-Match....bypass the constitution all together.


The Federal Government is an Agent of the States. Not the other way around.

[johnrocks]

I have stated my terms for voting of it's legalization many times but I'll repeat them, the death penalty for anyone convicted of supplying it to a minor and that includes allowing your stash to be pilfered by your kids who then give it to mine.

Just take it out of the Fed.'s hand,respect the 10th, oh yeah, and the 9th.

[johnrocks]

I was responding to John who wants it legalized.

I just want to uphold the Constitution, isn't that in line with what we're discussing here? Like Mohawk stated, let me eat lard right off the cow, what biz is it of government's?

[Safiel]

Huh? The government forces you to buy that? My parents don't have that. They have regular health insurance. My dad is 71 and my mom is 69.

I was talking about Social Security.

[zantax]

I just want to uphold the Constitution, isn't that in line with what we're discussing here? Like Mohawk stated, let me eat lard right off the cow, what biz is it of government's?


Hey, I was agreeing with you, only I have a condition for it's legalization, surely you don't think having penalties for giving it to kids is unconstitutional or do they have a right to get high as well?

[Creefer]

People don't usually challenge things like this by themselves. You get an organization with deep pockets to back the challenge. You probably wouldn't even be able to challenge it until you failed to pay the IRS penalty/tax and got hauled to tax court.

Makes me wonder if the IRS would even want to fight individuals about it if they plain refused, knowing that someone is setting them up for the challenge.

[HoracioMendez]

Hey, I was agreeing with you, only I have a condition for it's legalization, surely you don't think having penalties for giving it to kids is unconstitutional or do they have a right to get high as well?
The penalty must be proportionate to the crime. That's Justice 101. What you suggested just doesn't fit.

[zantax]

The penalty must be proportionate to the crime. That's Justice 101. What you suggested just doesn't fit.

Sure it does, getting kids hooked on drugs can ruin their lives, you must not be a parent.

[fallenturtle]

I've frankly never understood how the draft was constitutionally legal.

[Jacksmyname]

How many of you will be joining me in chaining yourselves to something in protest if you end up on government health insurance?

I'm game, depending on what I'll be chained to................
Now, if it's one of the Fox News ladies..............:mrgreen:

[tjvh]

If a law is passed that mandates Americans buy a health insurance policy, I hope someone challenges it in the courts.

Nancy Pelosi said yeterday 96% of Americans would be covered.

Does that mean 4% would be law breakers? What would she do to them. That must be somewhere in the 1900 pages!

I think the 4% would most likely be the Politicians with their far nicer Health plans they will no doubt HAPPILY retain.

[Cutiepie]

How many of you will be joining me in chaining yourselves to something in protest if you end up on government health insurance?



Hey I will do it. I have told my employer's and my husband if I end up in jail don't worry b/c it is simply me refusing to have health insurance by the government. I would rather sit in jail and rot then take anything the government is offering me.

[Cutiepie]

I was talking about Social Security.




ahhhh gotcha.

[zantax]

I've frankly never understood how the draft was constitutionally legal.


Congress was given the power to raise an army.

from wiki

In 1918, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). Arver v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arver_v._United_States&action=edit&redlink=1), 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#cite_note-49) The Court summarized the history of conscription in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States) envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution's grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states' rights, the Thirteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion), and other provisions of the Constitution.

[fallenturtle]

Congress was given the power to raise an army.

from wiki

Ahhh. Now I know. :)

[Rurudyne]

I've frankly never understood how the draft was constitutionally legal.
Before the 13th amendment there would have been no problem.

But this is what I think they do: registration is not voluntary, but registration is not the service itself.

So they seem to claim, on the one hand, that what you are forced to do is not in and of itself forced servitude.

Then, since you've registered they later follow up and demand/imply that the act of registration renders any service voluntary.

Separating different aspects of a thing from one another like this seems par for the course on how lawlessness in government is pushed forward.

As I essentially said in another post: you should not separate what the fed is trying to force a State to do under threat (say the drinking age) from its actual delegated powers. For it to demand a State do something it cannot do on its own legal merits is still it attempting to do what it has no lawful power to do.

As they say: the primary skill of lawyers is knowing how to get around and disregard the Law.

[JerryN]

well, how many people lie on their tax forms? I rest my case. They are going to have a very hard time trying to prove that people don't have health insurance. People lie about auto insurance, people lie on their tax forms. This won't be any different.

I do believe that the SCOTUS will rule it UnConstitutional and to see the look on plastic face Pelosi's would be priceless.

They won't do it that way - they will require the Insurance co's to issue a form 1099- UHC or similar crap.
With an automated copy to the IRS computer - just like they do with W-2s, 1098 (mortgage int) and 1099 already.

If your file doesn't match, your return gets rejected.

[BillBrown]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

I know of none, but nothing surprises me anymore.

[Maelstrom]

Before the 13th amendment there would have been no problem.

But this is what I think they do: registration is not voluntary, but registration is not the service itself.

So they seem to claim, on the one hand, that what you are forced to do is not in and of itself forced servitude.

Then, since you've registered they later follow up and demand/imply that the act of registration renders any service voluntary.


Actually, your allegiance to America is put to the test in a draft. If you don't or won't be drafted, your allegiance is not to America, but instead to your excuse.

[HoracioMendez]

Actually, your allegiance to America is put to the test in a draft. If you don't or won't be drafted, your allegiance is not to America, but instead to your excuse.
The draft is slavery. How sad that you could even attempt to justify it.

[Maelstrom]

The draft is slavery. How sad that you could even attempt to justify it.

No, the draft is not slavery.

The most common form of slavery today is Socialism.

[HoracioMendez]

No, the draft is not slavery.

The most common form of slavery today is Socialism.

How isn't it slavery? Just because soldiers get payed, or because you think the slavery is for a good cause? Absolutely ridiculous.

[opsyscw]

What would be real interesting is if SCOTUS would uphold the Constitution and rule that forcing us to buy health insurance is in fact, a "bill of attainment" and then have all the other social programs that we are taxed for be declared Unconstitutional also because of the ruling.

Which is probably the reason SCOTUS will rule the Health Care bill is Constitutional if it ever gets that far.

[BeatlesSteve]

I'm game, depending on what I'll be chained to................
Now, if it's one of the Fox News ladies..............:mrgreen:

Susan Esterich?

[Trip]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

My own view:

Government has no "right" to consume and control all health care services in this country. There is no reasonable means this can be justified in the Constitution.

However, specifically HR 3200 has a provision in the bill that would allow government bureaucrats access to an individual’s health records, as well as their bank account information. Not only is this a breach of the long standing practice of doctor-patient confidentiality, it is in direct defiance of the Fourth Amendment, which indicates:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The United States Constitution guarantees that some officious socialist bureaucrat in Washington has no right to access my health records or my bank account.

Furthermore there are reference to numerous taxes and penalties in the HR 3200. Page 167 references the "penality tax" of 2.5% of your income if you do not belong to a "qualified plan". Illegal aliens, regular aliens, and certain "religious sects" are exempted. Also if an employer doesn't have health coverage for his employees, there will be an 8% payroll tax penalty.

In 1894 the Pollock case was heard before the Supreme Court and basically outlawed income tax, the rule being that ANY direct tax on the people be distributed amongst the states euqally based upon the last census. The 16th Amendment removed the requirement of census or enumeration for income taxes. Seeing as this bill imposes a "Direct tax" on the individual, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution requires it to be passed uniformly across the country (Which was upheld the the Pollock case). The 16th Amendment does not overturn this rule because it only applies to income tax. We have legal precedent for this already in case law.

Additionally, the Constitution prohibits Bills of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution, Article I "Legislative Power Vested In Congress", Section 9 "Limits on Congress", paragraph 3 has the strong prohibition:


No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. In this case the "crime" is not having some degree of health care, and the attainder is forfeiture of monies without any trial or appeal.


WHAT ABOUT MEDICAID, MEDICARE & SOC SEC?
Obviously some would argue that further health care involvement would not be unconstitutional because previous involvement in Medicare and Medicaid was not prohibited. Unfortunately, that's not a great basis upon which to make a presumption. Medicare and Medicaid do not restrict a citizen from seeking supplemental medical insurance and don't penalize citizens if they do not elect Medicaid. When a citizen seeks additional care, he/she is exercising his right to pay for choice. HR 3200 is touted as removing voluntary access to private insurance.

Social Security is also not the same thing as it is a "tax" on income and, at least in theory, involves payment for services to be rendered at a later time. Whereas mandatory health care is mandating payments for all citizens whether they need health care or not, and there is no such expectation of any later return on payments made. It is a scam using those who don't need health care to balance out those who do, essentially income redistribution by mandate and threat of imprisonment (reference Bill of Attainder, above).


This "universal" health care is not optional, is entirely mandatory, and they are forcing us to pay penalties if we do not comply. This is NOT what was seen with Medicare and Medicaid. Second, this is interfering in in employment contracts, inserting the government in that contract as a third party, mandating insurance coverage and projecting obligations onto both parties while it involves itself as a "competitor". And third, the fines and penalties imposed on some persons for their choices is what is known as a "bill of attainder" and is explicitly prohibited in our Constitution. These fee penalties are nothing but poorly disguised abuse of government authority to force people, free citizens, into "contributing" to and fueling the government's power grab and take over of yet another private industry and violation of our rights.

There are also other Constitutional issues evident in the Bill, including an unequal application of the law with the exclusion f some croups from compliance, not to mention the exclusion of these same Congressman, as if we've somehow created a preferred political class in this country, itself only quasi-constitutional now when we have Congress (and other Fed employees) awarding themselves special health care. When we suddenly have mandated health care insurance with mandated standards, then their continued taxpayer-provided insurance amounts to exempting themselves entirely from the law.

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1: Compensation and Legal protection:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

(They are not exempt from laws and should not have the ability to exempt themselves beyond the only above exemptions)

Article 1, Section 9: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States"

[Shawna]

What happens if you do not buy food or clothes for your kids?

FAIL.

The government does not require you to "buy" food or clothes for your kids.

[Jacksmyname]

Susan Esterich?

Oh God please no.......................

[Shawna]

They already do.
Social security is an insurance they force on us. Just because it is paid for via FICA taxes doesn't make it any different. Same with medicare. Heck same with pretty much everything the government does.

So 'can' they? Yes.
Should they? Well that is the real question now isn't it.

Not quite the same.

In the case of health insurance, the government will require you to purchase a commercial product or ultimately face imprisonment for not doing so.

Now, they will attempt to say that you are being imprisoned for not paying an IRS penalty and that it has nothing to do with the failure to purchase a commercial product.

Isn't it sad that American citizens are subject to this type of end-around by their government? It would seem that even liberals would be opposed to this, but they are not. I wonder why? And people wonder why we use the terms Marxist and socialist when describing the actions of this administration.

[Trip]

Halloween nudge

[Gatekeeper]

This government can do anything it desires to every citizen, anything.
All in the name of Health--Safety--national security (Homeland security)-- declared national emergencies, etc. Then invoke Executive Orders and anything else they need to control the population.

So the answer is____YES____

Why? because we as citizens didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing.

[EnchantedFrog]

This government can do anything it desires to every citizen, anything.
All in the name of Health--Safety--national security (Homeland security)-- declared national emergencies, etc. Then invoke Executive Orders and anything else they need to control the population.

So the answer is____YES____

Why? because we as citizens didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing.
Yeah. Congress has repeatedly proven that they can say anything is for the general welfare of the country and enact any legislation they damn well please with zero repercussions. It has gotten so bad, in fact, that the Speaker of the House, when questioned whether the healthcare bill is, in fact, constitutional, replies, "Are you serious?"

[mboncher]

Yeah. Congress has repeatedly proven that they can say anything is for the general welfare of the country and enact any legislation they damn well please with zero repercussions. It has gotten so bad, in fact, that the Speaker of the House, when questioned whether the healthcare bill is, in fact, constitutional, replies, "Are you serious?"
I quote Jason Lewis (again).

If the general welfare clause of the preamble to the Constitution allows government to do anything and is not limited to the enumerated powers, why did not the founders stop there? Why did they bother with the rest if it's superseded by their uncontrolled power to do anything that they feel is in the best interest of the general welfare?

Madison wrote IIRC in the Federalist Papers that the Federal government IS able to promote the general welfare INSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS. Everything else is left to the states. Therefore, if you do not like the mix of government in one state, find one you DO agree with and move there.

You want socialist medicine? Fine, find a state that provides it and move there.

That's what makes this franchising of liberalism at the federal level over all the states and the necessity of the enumerated powers so damn critical.

To say otherwise, ignores the logic and common sense inherent in the basic existence OF the Constitution and the concept of checks and balances.

[Trip]

I quote Jason Lewis (again).

If the general welfare clause of the preamble to the Constitution allows government to do anything and is not limited to the enumerated powers, why did not the founders stop there? Why did they bother with the rest if it's superseded by their uncontrolled power to do anything that they feel is in the best interest of the general welfare?

Madison wrote IIRC in the Federalist Papers that the Federal government IS able to promote the general welfare INSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS. Everything else is left to the states. Therefore, if you do not like the mix of government in one state, find one you DO agree with and move there.

You want socialist medicine? Fine, find a state that provides it and move there.

That's what makes this franchising of liberalism at the federal level over all the states and the necessity of the enumerated powers so damn critical.

To say otherwise, ignores the logic and common sense inherent in the basic existence OF the Constitution and the concept of checks and balances.

"GENERAL WELFARE"

"General welfare" is not individual welfare and is specifically written to not involve such.


The words "general welfare" (or even welfare) appears only twice in the Constitution, first in the preamble and second in Article 1, Section 8:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "general welfare" clause was not an independent grant of power. It was preceding the list of enumerated powers. Furthermore the entire phrase is ""general Welfare of the United States". This was to dealing with the welfare of each individual state, the United States being the whole, and not the welfare of each individual citizen within those States.

The meaning of the word "Welfare" at the time is important to its application to the several States. The 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language shows how "Welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

Quite obviously definition #1, above, could not possibly represent what Congress is entitled to do. Congress cannot reasonably effect our personal misfortune, nor our sickness, nor our heath, nor the common blessings we enjoy in life. Definition 1 is a statement of one's personal status and by no means any sort of "general welfare".

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

In fact, Article 1, Section 8 is applied to STATES and not individually as shown by the full phrase, "general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" not being relevant to individual citizen welfare, and this is further shown by its pairing with "common defense".

Regarding that "common defense", we don't have government subsidizing each of us having guns, do we?

[Maelstrom]

How isn't it slavery? Just because soldiers get payed, or because you think the slavery is for a good cause? Absolutely ridiculous.

It is a fundamental obligation for freedom. It is more fundamental to freedom than a standing army.

Liberty isn't the freedom to do whatever the **** you want. It is the right to do as you please and the consequence is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Free People must serve, on the rare occasion to remain free. It is a fundamental aspect of the social contract aspect of the Constitution.

You want to be free? If so, then you have the personal responsibility to feed yourself, clothe yourself, shelter yourself, defend yourself AND THE NATION THAT RECOGNIZES YOUR GOD-GIVE FREEDOM, and yes, even find and pay for your own ****ing health care.

You want to be a slave? Then let someone else do those things for you. A prison system, for example, takes care of all those things for you.

[Late2TheParty]

Social Security is a tax.

That's already been ruled upon, and settled, by the courts.

It was sold as insurance to the American People when it was first introduced and put into law. Hence, a "service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#History

[Maelstrom]

It was sold as insurance to the American People when it was first introduced and put into law. Hence, a "service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#History

http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/Chap5.htm

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A TRUST FUND OR INSURANCE

Social Security is socialism, not insurance, not a pension, nor a trust fund.

I will explain in another chapter why your federal government cannot give entitlements to ordinary people. But first, I will convince you that you did not earn any SS benefits, and you did not deposit anything into a trust fund, you did not earn a pension, and you did not pay any insurance premium.

In 1937 the Social Security Act was declared unconstitutional because, according to the federal appellate court, it was using public funds for private purposes, as a "trust fund" and as "insurance" - Davis v. Boston, 89 F2d 368. The court declared that as an excise tax, which it claimed to be, it could not be imposed on wages since an excise may be placed only on articles of consumption. (This case reversed a lower court’s ruling in 17 FSupp 97, which decided that it was valid as an excise tax). A month later, the Supreme Court, in both Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937) and in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 US 548 (1937), both cases decided on the same day, declared the appellate court was wrong. Although they did not explain why the appellate court was wrong, they reversed the appellate court.

The Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937):

“The proceeds of both taxes [Social security taxes on “employers” and “employees”] are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way. Section 807(a), 42 U.S.C.A. 1007(a).”

[Rurudyne]

A month later, the Supreme Court, in both Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937) and in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 US 548 (1937), both cases decided on the same day, declared the appellate court was wrong. Although they did not explain why the appellate court was wrong, they reversed the appellate court.
When you cannot refute an argument or reasoning you can always ignore it.

As with preferring a statement by Hamiltion as Secretary of State rather than what he told the States to the contrary, keeping in mind that it was the States who alone had authority to adopt the Constitution, that Court seems to have been real good at poking its fingers in its ears and chanting: "What? What?! I can't hear you!!!"

[Maelstrom]

When you cannot refute an argument or reasoning you can always ignore it.

As with preferring a statement by Hamiltion as Secretary of State rather than what he told the States to the contrary, keeping in mind that it was the States who alone had authority to adopt the Constitution, that Court seems to have been real good at poking its fingers in its ears and chanting: "What? What?! I can't hear you!!!"

Yup...and it has it's own consequence.

[Rurudyne]

Yup...and it has it's own consequence.
In another thread earlier today I said of one clause that it was: "a parrot's mantra echoed by lawyers, as with so many other phrases, without meaning."

While possibly needlessly insulting to parrots, some of whom CAN understand that which they say, when it comes to the Constitution and so-called constitutional law (as currently malpracticed by so many) I reckon it to be a fair assessment.

[waynevan]

I am curious what powers have been granted to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to buy a service?

Great question on the radio today.

Do you really think anybody in the Whitehouse cares about that? If this thing passes, everyone who stands up for liberty will be an enemy of the state.

[Shawna]

"GENERAL WELFARE"

"General welfare" is not individual welfare and is specifically written to not involve such.


The words "general welfare" (or even welfare) appears only twice in the Constitution, first in the preamble and second in Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
The "general welfare" clause was not an independent grant of power. It was preceding the list of enumerated powers. Furthermore the entire phrase is ""general Welfare of the United States". This was to dealing with the welfare of each individual state, the United States being the whole, and not the welfare of each individual citizen within those States.

The meaning of the word "Welfare" at the time is important to its application to the several States. The 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language shows how "Welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
Quite obviously definition #1, above, could not possibly represent what Congress is entitled to do. Congress cannot reasonably effect our personal misfortune, nor our sickness, nor our heath, nor the common blessings we enjoy in life. Definition 1 is a statement of one's personal status and by no means any sort of "general welfare".

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

In fact, Article 1, Section 8 is applied to STATES and not individually as shown by the full phrase, "general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" not being relevant to individual citizen welfare, and this is further shown by its pairing with "common defense".

Regarding that "common defense", we don't have government subsidizing each of us having guns, do we?

Good post.

Why does it seem that liberals are always at odds with the Constitution?

Obama believes the Constitution is flawed.

Liberals claim it's a "living" document, meaning it can be interpreted to mean whatever they are pushing at the moment. They don't want to recognize that the "living" aspect of the Constitution is the built in ability to amend it; because they know their socialist "amendments" would never pass.

Many liberals hold more reverence for Engels, Marx and apparently Mao than they do for the framers of the Constitution.

[Maelstrom]

Good post.

Why does it seem that liberals are always at odds with the Constitution?

Obama believes the Constitution is flawed.

Liberals claim it's a "living" document, meaning it can be interpreted to mean whatever they are pushing at the moment. They don't want to recognize that the "living" aspect of the Constitution is the built in ability to amend it; because they know their socialist "amendments" would never pass.

Many liberals hold more reverence for Engels, Marx and apparently Mao than they do for the framers of the Constitution.

Socialism does not lend itself to the United States under a constitutional form of government.

It stands in their way.

[Rurudyne]

Socialism does not lend itself to the United States under a constitutional form of government.

It stands in their way.
Indeed.

One cannot advance social welfare among the several States by means of the federal government without grabbing (i.e. stealing) powers reserved to the States or the people.