…is unconstitutional. Among other things, they shoot down the imbecilic analogy with auto insurance.
Not that these people give a damn about the Constitution, of course.
46 thoughts on “Why The Individual Mandate”
Comments are closed.
…is unconstitutional. Among other things, they shoot down the imbecilic analogy with auto insurance.
Not that these people give a damn about the Constitution, of course.
Comments are closed.
Hey, if you choose to be born an American or become an American, then you got to pay the price. It’s the Progressive/Liberal way!
The individual mandate gained prominence in policy circles after the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole pushed it as an alternative to HillaryCare. It was part of Wyden-Bennett, which was co-sponsored by 20 Republicans.
None of which proves that it is constitutional, but it does show that the GOP drive to have it declared unconstitutional is motivated by politics, not a concern for Constitutional purity.
If I were a Republican, your argument might have some force. But I’m not, so it doesn’t. It was unconstitutional when Republicans proposed it, and it remains so now. If the Republicans have finally gotten serious about the Constitution, why would I complain? At least we’ll have one party that is.
None of which proves that it is constitutional, but it does show that the GOP drive to have it declared unconstitutional is motivated by politics, not a concern for Constitutional purity.
And your point is? Are we only allowed to protect the Constitution when our interests are not at stake?
BTW, I went to the whitehouse.gov to get a copy of the bill, since some Senator claimed as President he would post such bills he might sign at that location. Searched for “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and found lots of videos and talking points about healthcare. But the actual bill? I couldn’t find it there.
I thought we were told they had to pass the bill, so we would know what was in the bill. It’s passed. It’s signed. But apparently, they still don’t want us reading the bill.
Yeah, I eventually found a copy of the law, like I can find a copy of “Avatar”, on the Internet.
And another thing; besides the mandate to get insurance, get ready to start filing returns showing that you do have insurance. These returns will be due January 31st. So the Census is due. Your tax return is due. And next year, your healthcare return is due. Welcome to privacy and freedom under a Democratic controlled government!
The individual mandate gained prominence in policy circles after the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole pushed it as an alternative to HillaryCare.
Bob Dole lost. Among reasons he lost; he was not a significant improvement over his Democrat challenger. Fast forward to 2008. John McCain lost. Among reasons he lost; he was not a significant improvement over his Democrat challenger. Fast forward to 2009, Tea Party protests begin without alignment to any national party. The effort, which has shown some success already, is to generate a block of votes available to persons willing to show significant improvement over current incumbents.
Under the Militia Act of 1792, private individuals were required by the Federal government to buy a whole set of equipment under penalty of tax.
Of course, the alternative to the current “buy or tax” regime is auto-enroll: you are enrolled in and taxed for public care unless you opt-out. Kind of like Medicare.
From the US Constitution:
Section 8 Powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
To include:
To raise and support Armies,
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Note, none of that says you can lay and collect Taxes to mandate health insurance.
Nor does any of that say that Congress can require somebody to buy a gun and equipment. Congress forced private citizens to engage in commerce.
Again, reading comprehension seems to be a difficulty for Gerrib. Apparently, he doesn’t grasp the term duties or commerce.
Read it Chris…lay taxes to provide for calling forth the Militia
Taxes in this case…militia members tax was to purchase militia gear.
commerce = transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of providing goods and services.
duties = a government tax on imports.
Going out and buying a gun and equipment is “commerce.”
Taxes in this case…militia members tax was to purchase militia gear.
No, a tax is a cash transaction. Under your definition of a tax, I don’t have to pay draftees. I could make somebody buy a tank or a fighter jet.
Doesn’t appear to be a SCOTUS ruling on this act which is about as old as the court itself. So how is that relevant? The mere passage of a law speaks to nothing about its constititionality.
duties = a government tax on imports.
Really? That’s the definition you get when you look up “Duties” or its root word “Duty”?
What definition do you get when you look up the next word in that sentence: “Imposts”
When you read Article 2 Section 2 (Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments) of the US Constitution and come across the word “Duties” again:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Do you think they mean government taxes on their respectice offices?
Oh, and before Chris returns with an armful of wiki sh*t — references to the act in the context of 2nd amendment issues don’t count.
Going out and buying a gun and equipment is “commerce.”
I don’t recall in the Militia act where it required one to purchase a gun or equipment. Perhaps you can find that part of the law.
The only way “duties” makes sense in Article 1, section 8 is as “import tax.” Especially since the next word is “imposts” which is also a kind of tax.
So, Congress has the power to raise money and regulate the militia. Nothing about making people buy stuff. Yet, the very people who wrote the Constitution were okay with requiring people to buy stuff.
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock. It goes on to list further equipment, but you get the point.
The only way “duties” makes sense in Article 1, section 8 is as “import tax.”
Says a person who sucks at reading comprehension.
The Congress had the ability to make compulsory service in the militia. A few decades ago, it was called the “Draft”. What word in the Article 1 Section 8 gives the power to Congress to demand service, Gerrib?
And why the hell would the writers say; “taxes, import taxes, import taxes and excise taxes”? Imposts is a custom tax on goods. Look up the damn term, Gerrib!
It says provide a good musket or firelock. It doesn’t say go out and purchase one.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I have enough firearms at home to outfit each of my family members with a long arm and a side arm, yet I didn’t have to purchase them, but I do legally possess them.
Again, I demand you find the part of the Militia act of 1972 requiring people to engage in commerce.
Well, the heritage foundation did a good job of convincing me that we need to amend the constitution to get rid of the commerce clause.
It’s worth noting that the Militia Act is in support of a responsibility of Congress. While there is a vague responsibility to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (“welfare” only appears twice in the Constitution and its amendments), but none of the enumerated powers/responsibilities of Congress allow it to do this.
And why the hell would the writers say; “taxes, responsiblities, import taxes and excise taxes?” Responsiblities for whom?
what word in the Article 1 Section 8 gives the power to Congress to demand service, None. Except service is commanded in the Militia Act.
So, we have an act drafted by the very same people who wrote the Constitution commanding service and private commercial activity. They clearly thought it was constitutional.
Unless the US Constitution gave the Congress authority to levy service requirements, they cannot write a law demanding service. Again, where in Article 1, Section 8, that defines the power of Congress, is their the power to demand service? Hint find a Thesaurus and look up the word “Duty”.
And again, no where in the Militia Act of 1972 is a requirement for people to purchase anything. My children can meet the requirements of the Militia Act of 1972 without having to purchase anything.
Leland – you purchased those firearms from somebody. Even if you made your weapons yourself, you purchased the steel, etc. “Provide” is legalise for “obtain via legal means.” Same with health care – you could provide for your adult children on your policy, for example.
Ryan Olcott – until you do, the clause is there.
Karl – I fail to find in the enumerated powers the right to set up the FAA, the FDA, NASA, or Social Security. Yet all those things are constitutional. Now, you may not like some or all of them, but “not liking” is not the same as “not Constitutional.”
Shorter Chris: “Congress can do anything.”
Chris, the same generation of people who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts. Doesn’t make it right, does it?
So, did this militia act of 1792 (all that way back, whew) require that everyone buy enough muskets with buck&ball to equate to 1/6 of the economies net worth? Whew, that’d be one hell of a militia.
Damn liberals and their endless emotional pleas, their moral equivocating, and their contorted fallacies of logic all in the endless aim of consolidating and controlling people and power. It’s never ending quest going back to the dawn of man himself. And yet they call themselves the progressives? Well, they can argue the dynamic amongst the wolf vs. the sheep all they want. Some of us are bulls, and if you F with the bull, you get the horns.
Karl – I fail to find in the enumerated powers the right to set up the FAA, the FDA, NASA, or Social Security.
The commerce clause provides for the FAA, FDA, and NACA. Social Security is as far as I’m concerned a blatant abuse of government power. NASA? Eh, it might be justifiable under the commerce clause or the providing for national defense.
Leland – you purchased those firearms from somebody. Even if you made your weapons yourself, you purchased the steel, etc.
None of that statement is true. I did not engage in any commerce to obtain the firearms.
“Provide” is legalise for “obtain via legal means.”
I can obtain things via legal means without engaging in commerce. It happens all the time.
Please look up these words before you try either interpreting them and especially trying to use them in a sentence. You are beclowning yourself, and I’m afraid I’ve run out of time in providing you my services of reading comprehension. No need to pay me for my service. I feel it is my duty to educate people in understanding their Constitutional rights.
There was actually great debate at the time as to whether the Sedition Act was constitutional or not. As far as I can tell, nobody blinked an eye about the Militia Act.
Josh Reiter – I’m not sure what relevance “1/6 of the economies” has. Are you arguing that Congress can only regulate trivial things?
Leland – I can obtain things via legal means without engaging in commerce. Not according to 2 centuries of jurisprudence. For example, Raich upheld a Federal law banning growing marijuana for private use under the Commerce Clause.
See, Leland, these words have technical meanings, and need to be interpreted in light of court rulings.
Gonzales vs Raich is five years old not “2 centuries”.
Any understanding of the constitution has to start with…
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
We give up some liberties for the purpose of security but it should be limited to an absolute necessity. Nothing beyond that.
The courts and congress may choose a wide liberal view that overly restricts our liberty. They’ve done so in the past and they do so here.
It’s time to go beyond just holding the line and start reasserting our rights.
Give me liberty or give me death (my liberty or their death.)
———————————————————————-
The commerce clause provides for the FAA, FDA, and NACA.
Which were intended to provide services, not regulate lives.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
It is obvious that the commerce clause is used improperly to take liberty away from citizens. It should be struck from the constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Some judges have said this amendment has no meaning. They should be impeached and certainly never sit on the supreme court.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We need to clarify this one.
Not according to 2 centuries of jurisprudence. For example, Raich upheld a Federal law banning growing marijuana for private use under the Commerce Clause.
WTF?
For starters, Gonzales v Raich was decided in 2005. Next, Gonzales v Raich did not determine that Congress has the power to force individuals to obtain a good or service. Finally, it has nothing to do with firearms.
“Under the Militia Act of 1792, private individuals were required by the Federal government to buy a whole set of equipment under penalty of tax.”
Only men of a certain as in class and only for a specified activity and period of time. It’s the activity, not just for existing or doing nothing. Unless you think we need a government and to pay a fee just to exist. Because that’s what we have now.
It’s constitutional for Congress to pass a flat per-person tax. It’s also constitutional for them to pass a tax rebate for people who have health insurance, and that tax rebate can just happen to equal the per-person tax. Voila, the individual mandate.
Jim, have you been drinking or imbibing something else? How are you going to pay for the massive administration to manage a tax and rebate on 300 million people?
It’s also constitutional for them to pass a tax rebate for people who have health insurance
How will they know? And I must repeat my position. It may be legal to have such a tax rebate, but it is an abuse of government power.
But it’s not a flat per-person tax, even before any rebate sleight-of-hand. There are many categories of people who simply will not be taxed in the first place, so it cannot be called a direct tax (which is the argument you’re making.)
I guess Jim hasn’t read the bill. The bill clearly says:
‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.
Any discussion of imposing a flat-tax and then subsidizing some individuals why denying other is a hypothethical that has nothing to do with the bill passed and being discussed.
No where in Article 1 Section 8 does the Congress have the power to require individuals maintain a minimum standard, nor require individuals to report evidence that they are maintaining a minimum standard.
Admittedly, we already have tax rebates for employer-based insurance and have had them for some decades now. It is worth considering why Congress didn’t choose to go the route that Jim proposed. It’s roughly equivalent to the way that they did do it, but in a way that has already been accepted by the Supreme Court.
My take is that tax rebates for health insurance have proven to be a bad idea and are one of the many drivers for the current high cost of health care.
At this point, with the New Party coup d’etat au fait d’accompli and their Manchurian Candidate esconced in the White House, its constitutionality is probably a matter of academic interest only. Besides, are we talking “constitutional constitutionality” or “empathetic Latina constiutionality”? Because it’s the latter that counts these days.
Or I might added “Chris Gerrib constitutionality,” which is based on “whatever empowers my gang to pick your pocket and tell you how to live is constituitional–or I’ll pretend it is, anyway.”
From Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (emphasis added):
Here, ‘duties’ can only refer to taxes.