[Orion27]

The Democrats' health-care overhaul asserts for Congress a power that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned: the power to force Americans to purchase unwanted goods or services. The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, the legislation would fall apart. Can Congress force me to purchase health insurance under penalty of law?
Cato Institute

[nonhuman]

I can't imagine how they could possibly justify this as Constitutional. Even the interstate commerce clause couldn't possibly be stretched that far!

[Chuckit]

Until the insurance field is opened up to allow companies to sell across state lines, it's definitively not interstate commerce.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The Democrats' health-care overhaul asserts for Congress a power that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned: the power to force Americans to purchase unwanted goods or services. The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, the legislation would fall apart. Can Congress force me to purchase health insurance under penalty of law?
Cato Institute

Probably not Constitutional.

But why the opposition to a mandate from the federal government to buy insurance? The federal government has many other universal mandates that impose a direct or indirect cost on citizens, so why are you so bothered by this particular mandate? And this doesn't even mention the mandates at the state level, like the requirement for (gasp!) car insurance to drive a car.

[dcmacdaddy]

Orion27,

I'm not saying you don't have a valid complaint--I think you do; I think this mandate is un-Constitutional as it (the Constitution) is written--I Just question the nature of this specific complaint and whether it isn't based more on an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment than on a anti-government-mandate sentiment. If you are opposed to all government mandates not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution I would hope you say so and oppose some of the mandates in the list below that are not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution. (As citizens, we are required to pay taxes that fund these programs that are un- or extra-Constitutional.) Do you really oppose ALL un-Constitutional mandates or just those that you don't like?

disease-prevention programs (the CDC, NIH, and USDA food inspection programs)
transportation safety programs (the FAA and NHTSA, the NTSB)
space flight programs (NASA)
student loan programs (Pell Grants)
home loan programs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD)
food- and/or drug-safety programs (the FDA)
cultural programs (NEA, NEH, Smithsonian)
natural resource management programs (the BLM, NPS, USFS)
economic development programs (HUD)
communication regulation programs (the FCC)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Orion27,

I'm not saying you don't have a valid complaint--I think you do; I think this mandate is un-Constitutional as it (the Constitution) is written--I Just question the nature of this specific complaint and whether it isn't based more on an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment than on a anti-government-mandate sentiment. If you are opposed to all government mandates not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution I would hope you say so and oppose some of the mandates in the list below that are not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution. (As citizens, we are required to pay taxes that fund these programs that are un- or extra-Constitutional.) Do you really oppose ALL un-Constitutional mandates or just those that you don't like?

disease-prevention programs (the CDC, NIH, and USDA food inspection programs)
transportation safety programs (the FAA and NHTSA, the NTSB)
space flight programs (NASA)
student loan programs (Pell Grants)
home loan programs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD)
food- and/or drug-safety programs (the FDA)
cultural programs (NEA, NEH, Smithsonian)
natural resource management programs (the BLM, NPS, USFS)
economic development programs (HUD)
communication regulation programs (the FCC)

I can't speak for Orion, but I'm opposed to ALL un-Constitutional mandates. Some of those I think might be worthwhile enough that the Constitution should be amended to allow for them, but none of them should be enacted while in violation of our most basic of laws.

That said, I think at least some of those programs that you listed are Constitutional. The CDC, FCC, USDA, and FDA, for example, all deal with matters of interstate commerce: diseases and communications pay no attention to borders and are intricately linked with even the most basic forms of commerce, and our current food system is absolutely dependent on interstate commerce. This isn't to say that these programs don't overstep their bounds—certain actions of the FCC, for example, are absolutely un-Constitutional—but just because some of the things they do are un-Constitutional does not mean that everything they do is.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Orion27,

I'm not saying you don't have a valid complaint--I think you do; I think this mandate is un-Constitutional as it (the Constitution) is written--I Just question the nature of this specific complaint and whether it isn't based more on an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment than on a anti-government-mandate sentiment. If you are opposed to all government mandates not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution I would hope you say so and oppose some of the mandates in the list below that are not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution. (As citizens, we are required to pay taxes that fund these programs that are un- or extra-Constitutional.) Do you really oppose ALL un-Constitutional mandates or just those that you don't like?

disease-prevention programs (the CDC, NIH, and USDA food inspection programs)

transportation safety programs (the FAA and NHTSA, the NTSB)
space flight programs (NASA)
student loan programs (Pell Grants)
home loan programs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD)
food- and/or drug-safety programs (the FDA)
cultural programs (NEA, NEH, Smithsonian)
natural resource management programs (the BLM, NPS, USFS)
economic development programs (HUD)
communication regulation programs (the FCC)

Now I can lobby to defund theses mandates without penalty. And I do have a problem with
unfunded mandates to the states. They can not print money. The conjoined issue here is there is a penalty
for non-compliance. I can always opt out owning car, without penalty.

[Chuckit]

There's a difference between the "mandates" dcmacdaddy listed and the mandate to pay for insurance: Those programs come out of our taxes, which the government is allowed to collect. Whether the programs themselves can exist is a different question, but it's not quite the same thing as being forced to pay for a service directly.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's a difference between the "mandates" dcmacdaddy listed and the mandate to pay for insurance: Those programs come out of our taxes, which the government is allowed to collect. Whether the programs themselves can exist is a different question, but it's not quite the same thing as being forced to pay for a service directly.

Correct. Both classes of mandates are un-Constitutional. Once is simply a direct mandate on individual citizens (need for health insurance) whereas the other is an indirect mandate on citizens (government agencies paid for by taxes).


And it's nice to see nonhuman and Orion27 both consistent in their opposition to un-Constitutional government mandates.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And it's nice to see nonhuman and Orion27 both consistent in their opposition to un-Constitutional government mandates.

Now that your examples have been shown to be quite a leap from the current healthcare reform initiative anyway, is it okay to have a view without it being immediately construed as an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment?

[The Final Dakar]

For the sake of simplicity, no.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now that your examples have been shown to be quite a leap from the current healthcare reform initiative anyway, is it okay to have a view without it being immediately construed as an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment?

It is OK for Orion27 and nonhuman to have a view without it being immediately construed as an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment because they have stated unequivocally that their viewpoints are consistent across the board. I will reserve judgment on others in this debate until they come out and say they are consistently against un-Constitutional government mandates of all sorts, not just un-Constitutional mandates by the current Congress and current Administration.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It is OK for Orion27 and nonhuman to have a view without it being immediately construed as an anti-Obama/anti-Democrat sentiment because they have stated unequivocally that their viewpoints are consistent across the board. I will reserve judgment on others in this debate until they come out and say they are consistently against un-Constitutional government mandates of all sorts, not just un-Constitutional mandates by the current Congress and current Administration.

As long as you insist on equating the support of NASA's space flight program for example, with meddling in 1/6th our economy; NASA proponents won't have to do or say anything unequivocally. You already have.

Somehow a ridiculous (almost utopian) standard should be reasonable for identifying Obama/(D) haters when the standard itself really speaks to a loyalty of another kind IMO.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

support of NASA's space flight program IS AN UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL MANDATE as it is not allowed for in Art. I Section 8 of the Constitution

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

meddling in 1/6th our economy [actually, just the requirement for mandatory insurance by all citizens] IS AN UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL MANDATE as it is not allowed for in Art. I Section 8 of the Constitution

I think UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL MANDATES are bad, regardless of why, how, and by whom they are passed. There is nothing "utopian" in that sentiment at all.


If we're going to insist on a strict interpretation of the Constitution (and what it allows the Legislative Branch to do) I want that strict interpretation to be applied consistently and across the board. I want there to be Constitutional Amendments before Congress would be allowed to fund programs like NASA, and the FTC, HUD, the Smithsonian (my previous employer of 13 years), and the various health-inspection agencies. I want Congress to be limited to funding programs outlined in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution ONLY. If that belief is considered utopian than by all means apply that term to me.

[Doofy]

Is the Individual Insurance Mandate Constitutional

Answer is irrelevant, since you chaps haven't been on your constitution for some time - since at least as early as 1934.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

..."infringed" includes transfer taxes.

Face it guys. You're not on your constitution. Time you wrote a new one that you can stick to.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Face it guys. You're not on your constitution.

Well, yeah, it's not exactly a secret that the Constitution has been ass-raped creatively interpreted to fit today's political agendas.

-t

[Big Mac]

It's unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop our politicians who say they don't have to care about the Constitution because that's what lawyers are for. Those who have defended its constitutionality claim that given the high costs to the public from the uninsured who get sick and use ERs as their primary care, it's an interstate commerce concern. And certainly the four Supreme-tards who couldn't see the 2nd Amendment as being an individual right in Heller will be able to easily go along with that argument.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If we're going to insist on a strict interpretation of the Constitution (and what it allows the Legislative Branch to do) I want that strict interpretation to be applied consistently and across the board. I want there to be Constitutional Amendments before Congress would be allowed to fund programs like NASA, and the FTC, HUD, the Smithsonian (my previous employer of 13 years), and the various health-inspection agencies. I want Congress to be limited to funding programs outlined in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution ONLY. If that belief is considered utopian than by all means apply that term to me.

I don't think the Constitution specifically limits what Congress can spend money on. We elect representatives to manage the budget.

On the other hand, I don't see how the Constitution allows the federal government to force us to buy something we don't want. Selectively taxing us when we don't choose to buy something doesn't really get around that fact.

I really don't think that those who voted for the bill much care about it's Constitutionality any more than they did whether it was something the American people really wanted. They had an agenda to pursue and the Constitution and the American people where just obstacles getting in the way.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think the Constitution specifically limits what Congress can spend money on. We elect representatives to manage the budget.

Article 1 § 8 limits what Congress can spend money on based on my reading, but obviously the majority of Congress cares not at all about the limited government the Constitution mandates. The march of politics hacked away at the Constitution by misreading the necessary and proper clause, interstate commerce clause and general welfare clause until Congress got transformed into a general legislature able to pass essentially anything it pleases.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I think UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL MANDATES are bad, regardless of why, how, and by whom they are passed. There is nothing "utopian" in that sentiment at all.

You seem to be suggesting that those who oppose this current healthcare measure on constitutional grounds are ideologically conflicted unless they're willing to revisit ALL ideals deemed potentially unconstitutional such as NASA's space flight program and address them with amendments. I'm saying you're welcome to cite the incredible proposed breech of limitations of power in the current healthcare debate without having to address NASA's space flight program.

The reality is that unless we want to storm Pennsylvania Ave with torches and pitchforks for every "slippery slope" argument we've made in the past that got us nowhere, we'd better choose our battles more effectively, unite, and kill this bill. I'll show you why the notion is utopian at this point however.

If we're going to insist on a strict interpretation of the Constitution (and what it allows the Legislative Branch to do) I want that strict interpretation to be applied consistently and across the board. I want there to be Constitutional Amendments before Congress would be allowed to fund programs like NASA, and the FTC, HUD, the Smithsonian (my previous employer of 13 years), and the various health-inspection agencies. I want Congress to be limited to funding programs outlined in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution ONLY. If that belief is considered utopian than by all means apply that term to me.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

September 2009: Take for example the issue of disease prevention. There is NOTHING in the Constitution one could use to apply to the issue of dealing with swine flu or SARS... Do you want us to go through the rigors of passing a Constitutional amendment to allow for the federal government to establish a national-level disease-prevention program? In theory that is a nice idea but in practice that would likely result in chaos, if not outright anarchy, if a disease outbreak occurred while the amendment process was being voted on.

So... it'd be a "nice idea" right? Maybe Utopian? Or is this really you just ebbing and flowing contingent upon unwavering support of Obama and/or Democrats?

I'm telling you it is perfectly acceptable to oppose a measure that proposes to meddle in 1/6th our economy while allowing for entities like NASA's space flight program and remain consistent with a desire to uphold the Constitution. One is a nicety that was sold to the populace before I was born in spite of the silenced warnings of a "slippery slope" by the minority many years ago. Here we are today with another proposal entirely; one that is going to be forced onto the populace regardless of majority opposition, regardless of the state of our economy, and regardless of the Constitution, and we're going to cram it through as fast as we can.

Now, if you'd like to return to all those ideals deemed "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" throughout history and draft amendments addressing each one... fine. Good luck with that. I won't fight it. In the meantime however, I am going to passionately oppose this exponentially greater breech of "limited powers" and government expansion without concern for red-herring arguments that seek to compartmentalize the opposition by relegating them nothing more than "Obama/Democrat-haters" using standards they admittedly cannot uphold themselves.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The Democrats' health-care overhaul asserts for Congress a power that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned: the power to force Americans to purchase unwanted goods or services.

Somehow I doubt that. The question is whether the framers would have deemed the health care situation enough of a crisis to warrant government action, and I suspect they would hardly be of one mind about it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop our politicians who say they don't have to care about the Constitution because that's what lawyers are for. Those who have defended its constitutionality claim that given the high costs to the public from the uninsured who get sick and use ERs as their primary care, it's an interstate commerce concern. And certainly the four Supreme-tards who couldn't see the 2nd Amendment as being an individual right in Heller will be able to easily go along with that argument.

Actually, I think that healthcare is an area in which there is an argument for Constitutionality. It would require a two-phased approach though: 1) lifting any and all restrictions on insurance companies operating across state lines which is clearly an issue of interstate commerce and then allows you to 2) impose federal regulations on insurance that is offered across state lines.

I don't, however, see how the particular approach taken by this Congress and administration could be defended as Constitutional though. (And personally I think it's poorly conceived to begin with.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think the Constitution specifically limits what Congress can spend money on. We elect representatives to manage the budget.

Read your Constitution. Article I Section 8 explicitly states what the Congress can spend money on.

[dcmacdaddy]

Here is a refresher for all of you unsure of what the Constitution allows the federal government to do.
This is from a post on my personal blog after our last Constitutional debate thread in September.



Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is the section of the Constitution that grants specific powers to the federal government.* These are called enumerated powers as the powers are explicitly enumerated (read: listed) within the Constitution. Below is a list of those powers assigned to the federal government. I have organised them by topical or subject matter categories to help make sense of them. But all of the powers, and their precise wording, are taken from the online version of the Constitution found here.
*In addition, the Constitution, via the 10th Amendment, states that these and only these powers can be held by the federal government.

BUSINESS REGULATION ACTIONS
—To regulate commerce among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
—To establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States
—To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
[I am assuming the patent system is a function of business regulation.]

CITIZENSHIP ACTIONS
—To establish a uniform rule of naturalization

FOREIGN RELATIONS ACTIONS
—To regulate commerce with foreign nations
—To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
—To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
—To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings
—To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

MILITARY ACTIONS
—To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
—To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
—To provide and maintain a navy
—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
—To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

MONETARY ACTIONS
—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
—To borrow money on the credit of the United States
—To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures
—To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States

POSTAL REGULATION ACTIONS
—To establish post offices and post roads
[One could argue that this enumeration of powers belongs under the category of BUSINESS REGULATION ACTIONS but the early postal system was about nationwide communication first and foremost.]

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seem to be suggesting that those who oppose this current healthcare measure on constitutional grounds are ideologically conflicted unless they're willing to revisit ALL ideals deemed potentially unconstitutional such as NASA's space flight program and address them with amendments. I'm saying you're welcome to cite the incredible proposed breech of limitations of power in the current healthcare debate without having to address NASA's space flight program.

Nope. Not in the slightest am I suggesting anything other than what I wrote. Go back and re-read exactly what I wrote and exactly what Orion27 and nohuman wrote.

I wondered if Orion27 and nonhuman were arguing against the insurance mandate on the basis of un-Constitutionality because they really opposed un-Constitutional government mandates or because they opposed this mandate from the Obama Administration.

I asked them explicitly if they were opposed to all un-Constitutional mandates, and gave some examples of other such mandates, and they both replied in the affirmative that yes, they were in fact opposed to all un-Constitutional mandates. Thus, there answers in this thread could be ascertained to be based on a genuine abhorrence of un-Constitutional mandates as opposed to a generalized animosity towards our current President/Congress.

It's pretty simple, really: Question asked; Question answered. Debate continues.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Article 1 § 8 limits what Congress can spend money on based on my reading, but obviously the majority of Congress cares not at all about the limited government the Constitution mandates. The march of politics hacked away at the Constitution by misreading the necessary and proper clause, interstate commerce clause and general welfare clause until Congress got transformed into a general legislature able to pass essentially anything it pleases.

Exactly.

I like your use of the term hacked away as well. I see the Constitution as terribly compromised by the Legislative branch and their power of the purse (spending money on anything and everything under the sun with no consideration of its legality) and the Executive branch and its power over national security matters (domestic spying, unilateral declarations of war, abuses of secrecy).

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Read your Constitution. Article I Section 8 explicitly states what the Congress can spend money on.

Yes, but then it includes this catch-all clause from your list below (emphasis mine):

"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"

(I'm not saying this makes the proposed mandate constitutional, as it is clearly not a tax.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Actually, I think that healthcare is an area in which there is an argument for Constitutionality. It would require a two-phased approach though: 1) lifting any and all restrictions on insurance companies operating across state lines which is clearly an issue of interstate commerce and then allows you to 2) impose federal regulations on insurance that is offered across state lines.

I don't, however, see how the particular approach taken by this Congress and administration could be defended as Constitutional though. (And personally I think it's poorly conceived to begin with.)

Everything about this piece of legislation is poorly conceived and, worse, will be poorly implemented. All to the detriment of the uninsured in this country who need access to some kind of regular healthcare.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, but then it includes this catch-all clause from your list below (emphasis mine):

"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"

(I'm not saying this makes the proposed mandate constitutional, as it is clearly not a tax.)

Yes. But as Big Mac has pointed out, the general welfare clause, along with the interstate commerce clause, has been so abused by Congress that they will try to justify just about anything based on these one or two caveats within the Constitution.

As far as health care goes, I think a nationwide tax to fund a nationwide health services plan for every US citizen is probably one of the few logical instances where a tax would be broad enough--and its intended benefit would be broad enough--to be justified under the "general welfare" clause.

Of course, my hypothetical above (nationwide tax to fund a nationwide health services plan for every US citizen) is nothing like what was currently passed by Congress.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes. But as Big Mac has pointed out, the general welfare clause, along with the interstate commerce clause, has been so abused by Congress that they will try to justify just about anything based on these one or two caveats within the Constitution.

Strictly speaking, it's hard for me to imagine how the general welfare clause can be "abused" even as the interstate commerce clause has. It's general by definition. People's views on whether it has been abused differ not because of different readings of the clause, but because of different conceptions of what in fact is in the general welfare, differences that in many cases go all the way back to the founding fathers.

As far as health care goes, I think a nationwide tax to fund a nationwide health services plan for every US citizen is probably one of the few logical instances where a tax would be broad enough--and its intended benefit would be broad enough--to be justified under the "general welfare" clause.

Of course, my hypothetical above ( nationwide tax to fund a nationwide health services plan for every US citizen) is nothing like what was currently passed by Congress.

I agree totally.

[Orion27]

I consider myself a strict constructionist. I do not consider myself an ideologue. That's why I voted for Bush's two terms as President. He was fundamentally flawed when it came to domestic policy and the economy. It was Bush's promised direction on the Supreme Court which confirmed my vote. If one thinks the "progressive" legislative agenda is destructive now, couple that with a "progressive" Supreme Court! The healthcare debate is not about healthcare or reform. Insurance stocks at 52 week highs, penalties and possible jail for non-compliance ect. This is about government expansion into the very fabric of our lives. It is about more government control in our private lives and loss of individual freedom. This used to be a country of second chances, rediscovery and redemption. Sadly, the world I new as a child is gone. By 2050, the Constitution, without amendment, will be irrelevant. The idea of Individual liberty will be an anachronism to be replaced by the nationalized corporation, executive and legislative behavior panels and an individually mandated Google chip in our body, non-compliance under penalty of law. All for our collective good, of course. It is the natural "progressive" progression.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Probably not Constitutional.

But why the opposition to a mandate from the federal government to buy insurance? The federal government has many other universal mandates that impose a direct or indirect cost on citizens, so why are you so bothered by this particular mandate? And this doesn't even mention the mandates at the state level, like the requirement for (gasp!) car insurance to drive a car.

Obama's use of the car insurance mandate is flawed for one big reason, not everyone owns a vehicle. (i.e. those who rely solely on public transportation)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes. But as Big Mac has pointed out, the general welfare clause, along with the interstate commerce clause, has been so abused by Congress that they will try to justify just about anything based on these one or two caveats within the Constitution.

But that doesn't mean it covers nothing. I think the CDC and interstate highway system, for example, definitely fall under uses of tax dollars that affect our general welfare (and the latter being legitimately essential for modern interstate commerce). I know you mentioned it in your post, but it was also in your list, so I just wanted to point it out again.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama's use of the car insurance mandate is flawed for one big reason, not everyone owns a vehicle. (i.e. those who rely solely on public transportation)

Isn't the same true with health insurance ?

Not everyone really needs it (e.g. young and healthy).

The government needs to stop being a nanny state and trying to run people's lives.

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by The Constitution (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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Isn't the individual mandate just a means for providing for the general welfare of the United States and all (well, most of) its citizens?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Isn't the individual mandate just a means for providing for the general welfare of the United States and all (well, most of) its citizens?

The clause specifies that Congress has the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" for the general welfare of the United States, not make people buy insurance.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The clause specifies that Congress has the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" for the general welfare of the United States, not make people buy insurance.

So a single-payer system might actually be Constitutional...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So a single-payer system might actually be Constitutional...

Well, this has been said before: the current proposal for health insurance is not really insurance, it's a tax.

Of course, that would make Obama a repeat liar, because he promised that people making under $250k would not see their taxes increasing. (He already broke that promise by increasing the tobacco tax).

That aside, we know that congress is out of their f*cking minds, since they consider billion $$$ bailouts for Financial Institutions and GM a measure of "general welfare".

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So a single-payer system might actually be Constitutional...

I would say yes. If it was funded by a uniform nation-wide tax and the single-payer system was designed to serve every US citizen then I think it would be hard-pressed to argue that such a program (single-payer health-care system funded by US tax dollars) was un-Constitutional in light of the "general welfare" clause.

[turtle777]

Yeah, just try to sell to the public that a increase in taxes would lead to savings in health care.

Not even the most blinded Democrats are dumb enough to believe that sh!t.

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The clause specifies that Congress has the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" for the general welfare of the United States, not make people buy insurance.

But what they're doing (last time I checked; I admit I haven't been keeping up with every little thing Harry does) is levying an additional tax, payable on your income tax return if you cannot provide proof of insurance. I think there is no question that Congress can levy taxes on people. If you want to prove that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, you need to prove that the imposition of the additional tax is not allowed.

Even though I am for the concept of health insurance for everyone (whether through private or public means), I had always assumed that enforcing that would be unconstitutional, until I read that. I also am not a Constitutional Law expert, and everything I say is probably wrong.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, just try to sell to the public that a increase in taxes would lead to savings in health care.

Not even the most blinded Democrats are dumb enough to believe that sh!t.

-t

That's another argument that's been done to death already: whether you believe that a government-funded health plan can achieve economies of scale to save money overall (since in this scenario the money you're paying for increased taxes is presumably coming from the health insurance you're not paying for). Your answer will be informed by ideology, but it's not going to be decisive one way or the other.

Edit: what dcmacdaddy said.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, just try to sell to the public that a increase in taxes would lead to savings in health care.

Not even the most blinded Democrats are dumb enough to believe that sh!t.

-t

We have been arguing (in the last 5 or 6 posts) whether a tax-based single-payer system might be Constitutional and NOT whether it would be financially sound or politically palatable. So, why don't you get off your soapbox and stick to the topic at hand, questions of Constitutionality as it relates to various type of government legislation.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, just try to sell to the public that a increase in taxes would lead to savings in health care.

Not even the most blinded Democrats are dumb enough to believe that sh!t.

-t

I don't know. We all were told that the Iraq war would be over quickly, and paid for largely by Iraqi oil reserve income, and we bought that hook, line, and sinker. We are pretty gullible.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

But what they're doing (last time I checked; I admit I haven't been keeping up with every little thing Harry does) is levying an additional tax, payable on your income tax return if you cannot provide proof of insurance. I think there is no question that Congress can levy taxes on people. If you want to prove that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, you need to prove that the imposition of the additional tax is not allowed.

My impression from the coverage is that what will finally clear the Senate by Christmas is a bill that requires most Americans to obtain private health insurance, or pay financial penalties. There will be subsidies to help low-income Americans pay for private insurance. The subsidies will be paid for by increases in payroll taxes for people earning more than $200,000, and an excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans. What to me seems unconstitutional is the federal requirement for people to buy insurance. What would be constitutional is the reverse: taxes to pay for insurance subsidies for low-income Americans, without the requirement for everyone to buy insurance.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My impression from the coverage is that what will finally clear the Senate by Christmas is a bill that requires most Americans to obtain private health insurance, or pay financial penalties. There will be subsidies to help low-income Americans pay for private insurance. The subsidies will be paid for by increases in payroll taxes for people earning more than $200,000, and an excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans. What to me seems unconstitutional is the federal requirement for people to buy insurance. What would be constitutional is the reverse: taxes to pay for insurance subsidies for low-income Americans, without the requirement for everyone to buy insurance.

Yeah, the requirement to buy insurance is definitely un-Constitutional in my reading of the legislation and hopefully will get overturned by SCOTUS on those grounds.

<edited to add>
What will be ironic is seeing the big insurance companies that initially opposed the health-care bill--because of the government option component to it--come out in favor of the bill now that it basically mandates citizens buy private insurance. (Have you seen the rise in stock price in the past week for the major insurance companies? It's phenomenal. Those who run the companies, and those who invest in the companies, know that they are in for potentially huge profits now that the Congress has mandated that every US citizen have health insurance. I for one, as a self-employed individual, will NOT be buying health insurance as mandated by Congress unless/until the legislation has been validated as Constitutional by SCOTUS.)

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Answer is irrelevant, since you chaps haven't been on your constitution for some time - since at least as early as 1934.



..."infringed" includes transfer taxes.

Face it guys. You're not on your constitution. Time you wrote a new one that you can stick to.

We need educated voters, not those who learn everything from the evening 'news' and moral politicians, which seem to be extinct.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

We have been arguing (in the last 5 or 6 posts) whether a tax-based single-payer system might be Constitutional and NOT whether it would be financially sound or politically palatable. So, why don't you get off your soapbox and stick to the topic at hand, questions of Constitutionality as it relates to various type of government legislation.

WTF ?

Are you a mod in training ?

-t

[besson3c]

I just love it when you turn on your charm Turtle... You had me at WTF stick guy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just love it when you turn on your charm Turtle... You had me at WTF stick guy.

Well, let's see if you earn the same response from dcmacdaddy, since your post was even more O/T than mine. I merely went off on a tangent to the current discussion, it seems like he had to get into mod-nazi mode and lash out on me.

-t