I don’t know why I have to do this, because there are people who get paid for it for a living in Washington, but apparently they’ve been asleep at the switch (at least if they’re Democrats, or maybe they just don’t give a damn). But I’ve been reading…(you know)… the Constitution. I’m assuming that it’s an accurate rendition, because it’s number one or two at Google (is that too broad an assumption?).
In Article 1, Section 8, it very clearly (to my innocent and unlawyerly mind) states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Emphasis mine.
How in the world can Harry Reid’s deal with Ben Nelson possibly pass that test?
[Evening update]
Would they really have the audacity to claim that the provisions of this man-caused disaster are neither a “duty, impost, or excise”? That’s the only way that I can see them weaselling out.
Call it the “audacity of hope…
We can all stand by for legal challenges out the wazoo. And then we get to pay for Obama’s attempt to place illegal laws on us that we don’t want in the first place.
It’s like an episode of Twilight Zone. Except Rod Serling is dead and this stupid Health Care Bill is still alive and kicking.
Because we now have a “living Constitution” which means whatever Senator Tweedledee and Justice Tweedledum say it means.
1) It’s a Bill Of Attainder.
2) It forces association – 1st Amendment violation.
3) No religios exemption -1st.
4) “Secure against unreasonable searches and seizures” – how does that square with insurance mandates for physicals?
5) Several potential due process issues.
6) Has to be a violation of either the sixth or seventh – failure to join -> fine -> jail without trial. “Because it is a tax issue, so the IRS will handle it.”
7) It damn well feels cruel and unusual.
Because the difference is technically on the spending side, I think. Nebraska has to “pay” the same amount for Medicaid as everyone else, but the Federal government rebates what they pay, circumventing that pesky Constitution.
It’s the same deal with what happens to you if you refuse to obey the mandate and buy health insurance. In fact, Congress has no power to force you to do so — that’s clearly not among its enumerated powers. But what happens is that Congress imposes a new tax, which “everyone” has to pay, except that, ha ha, they simultaneously create a new tax rebate such that if you buy your Federally Approved health-care plan like a good little robot, then you get your extra tax hit magically rebated by the Federal government. If you don’t, you’re on the hook for a whopping big tax increase — but don’t you dare call it a fine! And if you go to jail because you didn’t pay it, it’s not jail for not buying Obamacare, it’s for not paying your taxes, obviously.
One of the reasons the Constitution is notably terse is that Madison did not believe in the power of a piece of paper to constrain bad government. He felt that if the governing leadership were reasonable men, then all that was needed were brief notes on the traditional general agreement. Good will, judgment, honesty and bargaining in good faith would do the rest.
If, on the contrary, the governing class were to become rapacious cynical demagoguing pond scum, then no amount of even highly detailed language in the Constitution could prevent them from wreaking havoc on the republic. After all, one of the noblest constitutions ever, with fine-sounding guarantees of rights and liberties, was the old constitution of the USSR.
This is exactly the kind of bill one would expect as a result of anthropogenic global warming.
Proof…
Y’all aint from around DC, is ya?
That Constitution thingy means whatever we damn well tell you it means, boy!
I’m afraid the 16th took care of this; one more reason to dislike it.
I’m not following you. Of course the half-Nelson applies uniformly across the United States — every single state named Nebraska gets the same sweetheart deal, no exceptions….
BBB
Are we talking (a) “Constitutional Constitutional” here? Or (b)”Constitutional in the empathetic eyes of a Wise Latina” (aka “Whatever expands the power of the State and we can get away with Constitutional”)? Because ObamaNation is clearly operating under assumption (b).
I take comfort in Obama’s continuing decline in poll numbers. He’s on track to becoming a one term president. Depends on whether the Republicans run a serious candidate against him or not. The big question is whether the Democrats can hold their majority in the House in 2010.
The great thing about this is that it got Dirty Harry to admit, on national television, that despite Obama’s ascension to power it’s business as usual in the House and Senate.
The curious thing is that there doesn’t seem to be as much outrage over Mary Landreau’s $300B bribe as there is over Nelson’s $100B bribe.
Carl, as usual, makes the real point here. The Constitution is like the Bibles – it’s a useful guide for those open to it’s message, but to the unbeleiver it’s just so much paper. Any respect made to it is for appearances only, much like the Clinton’s Church attendance. But it has no sway over their conscience, and the Supreme Court decided under FDR that it’s better to let Congress have it’s way than to provoke a crisis by actually holding the Constitution by its plain language.
“The curious thing is that there doesn’t seem to be as much outrage over Mary Landreau’s $300B bribe as there is over Nelson’s $100B bribe.”
The 100 billion straws that broke the camels back.
Indeed, it’s pure Calvinball, and yet just watch how uppity those hypocrites get if you don’t play by their rules of the moment. When the law does not respect decent men, then decent men will not respect the law.
Titus, it’s not true Calvinball because only certain people get to decide what the rules are. Or maybe it’s true Calvinball for the players, but we are the balls not the players.
The 100 billion straws that broke the camels back.
True, true. And I see the constitutional angle with the Nelson bribe. OTOH, 300 is still three times as much as 100.
At some point we really need to consider having an intervention.
“Hey, Louisiana, we know you like to party and have fun and we like to have fun with you sometimes, but things are just getting out of control and it’s really starting to effect the rest of us. Like all of the political corruption and graft, that’s gotta stop. Now we’re going to go around the room and each state is going to tell you something you’ve done that’s hurt them.”
or lawyers for short.
Kevin B,
Lawyers, as a class, don’t deserve that sentiment. That was low.
What I learned about owning firearms (or for that matter a car, a house, or even being a human being):
Be ready to deploy your lawyer at a moments notice.
Lawyers are better at protecting your rights than votes or guns. And writing/calling your Congressman, while very, very important, only works when you get lots of people to do it with you. Your lawyer, like your car, is for your alone.
I love lawyers.
This does not mean I think only lawyers make the best law makers….
Yours,
Tom DeGisi
It doesn’t matter. The dems have no intention of this bill being anything like what is currently on paper. Now that they have the horse through the gate, it’s relatively small news to add a favored constituency here, take away a line item there, dip into the general fund here. Unless the Supreme Court actually makes a principled stand like in 1934-35, the heart of the monster will stay intact.
Pond scum ain’t too happy about it either.