|
Recently, Congress passed “The Affordable Care Act” which threatens to transform the foundation of individual freedom and liberty in the United States. The chief concern of opponents to this bill is the individual mandate, contained within the bill, which requires citizens to engage in business with a private company. Due to the lack of legal precedent for individual mandates by Congress, courts across the land are examining the Constitution to determine the legality of such a mandate. However, the Constitution falls short of expressly granting such a power in the Commerce Clause nor does such a power meet the guidelines of the Necessary and Proper clause to be interpreted as an implied power. This overreaching assumption of power fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and their government and will effectively reduce them to serfs. Consequently, we must demand that Congress repeal the Affordable Care Act.
The government argues that they are exercising their power to regulate commerce, specifically health care, as granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, commonly referred to as the commerce clause, and the implied powers granted in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 of the Constitution. The commerce clause reads: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” (archives.gov) Since we are not dealing with foreign nations or Indian tribes the point of contention is “and among the several states.” James Madison explains the original intent of this language in his 1828 letter to Mr. Joseph C. Cabell where he writes, “… that the relative situation of the States had been found on trial to require uniformity in their commercial regulations… for preventing animosities which can not fail to arise among the several States from the interference of partial and separate regulations.” (Madison, James web-source) Madison clearly describes why there was a need to regulate commerce.
The founders were addressing a problem that had existed in England where Lords would impose a tax on all goods that traveled across their land holdings. Imagine a scenario where milk farmed in California was brought to market in Texas. Each time the product crossed state lines a tax on the milk’s value was imposed. The higher cost of bringing that product to market would then be passed on to the consumer and ultimately discourage the producer from doing business outside of his home state of California. This irregularity of commerce threatened to create trade wars among the several states. States with major ports would be at a considerable advantage compared to the inland states and would have been in a position to leverage their power against other states for their own benefit. Despite the founder’s original meaning and intent of the commerce clause, courts have expanded it to include a much broader interpretation.
In 1942 Roscoe Filburn challenged just how far the Commerce Clause’s powers extended. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, wheat exports had declined to less than ten percent, leaving a large surplus greatly diminishing the price of wheat. In an effort to protect the domestic price of wheat, the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act imposed limits on the amount of wheat that individual farmers could produce. In 1941 Roscoe Filburn exceeded his wheat allotment of 11.1 acres and planted 23 acres. When Filburn was brought to trial he argued that because the excess wheat was for personal use, and never meant to enter interstate commerce, Congress lacked the authority to regulate it. The Supreme Court decided against Filburn stating that the excess wheat Filburn consumed would impact the amount of wheat Filburn would purchase at market and, in the aggregate, have a negative impact on the overall price of wheat at market. This marks an obvious departure from the founder’s original intent of the Commerce Clause and set the precedent for the commerce clause as we know it today.
In 2005 Angel Raich, following closely in the steps of Filburn, also challenged how far Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce extended. Angel Raich, suffering chronic pain, was prescribed medical marijuana to alleviate her symptoms. As a result, Raich began growing marijuana for her personal consumption. The DEA, acting under federal law, destroyed the plants prompting Raich to file suit.
The resulting suit challenged the government’s right to regulate commerce at an intrastate level and became a battle ground for states’ rights versus the federal government’s rights. Under California law, Raich was allowed to grow a specified amount of marijuana for person use. However, the Federal Government had outlawed such practices. Ultimately, in a 5-4 decision, the government upheld that, while legal under California law Raich’s actions would have a negative impact on the federal government’s effort to regulate the interstate market of marijuana. Justice Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, “This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." (Thomas, J. web source)
The cases of Filburn and Raich, while incompatible with the original intent of the Commerce Clause, obviously gives precedent to the regulation of commerce at an intrastate level. However, it is important to note that they only give precedent to regulate activity that is already taking place.
The Affordable Care Act seeks to regulate inactivity by forcing people, who are otherwise inactive, to engage in economic activity (Barnett, Randy). Clearly, there is no legal precedent for such a power. As a result, the government is relying heavily on its enumerated powers granted in the Necessary and Proper Clause (Barnett, Randy). The Necessary and Proper clause states that Congress shall have the power “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.” (archives.gov web-source) The question becomes whether or not the individual mandate is necessary and proper.
Essentially, Congress is saying because they have the power to draft people into the military, they have the power to make people do anything less than that (Barnett, Randy). Madison accurately described the implications of this logic when he said, “… The essential characteristics of the Government, as composed of limited and enumerated powers, would be destroyed, if, instead of direct and incidental means, any means could be used…” (Madison, James). Contrary to the common theme of Government today, Madison is saying that the ends do not justify the means when it comes at the cost of constitutionality. If the latter were true, then we as a country are a free people in name only.
If we are to accept Congress’ definition of necessary, as implied by the individual mandate, there are no limits to the means available to them in accomplishing their legislative agenda when the end goal is in the general realm of their power to regulate commerce. If government can compel citizens to give their money to a health care company, there is nothing stopping them from mandating the citizenry give their money to any other business in the name of regulation.
The Constitution is the first and last line of defense of the people from their Government. The written guarantees contained within the Constitution are what guarantees individual liberty and freedom. Neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper clause grants Congress the power to regulate inactivity. There is no legal precedent for such a power either. James Madison spoke of the necessity to define and limit the powers of government, and the founding fathers took great care to ensure the powers of the people were numerous and indefinite. The responsibility of ensuring individual freedom and liberty rests squarely on the shoulders of the people. While people generally agree health care reform is needed, we must not sacrifice our principles to obtain it. We cannot trade our liberty for health care.
 
|
5/5
well said. regulating commerce != forcing trade
Myself, even being a rather socialist individual, think it's ridiculous that we are forced to pay a private corporation, ensuring in a way that they'll always make profit, and therefore never truly being accountable for their service.
If we had a publicly accountable nonprofit healthcare system, would you agree? Or are you more of a libertarian don't believe in taxes at all type of guy?
|
Just make a state insurer already and stop with the half-assed solutions, America.
Oh, and don't copy-paste chain emails into blogs.
|
On December 06 2011 01:27 bonifaceviii wrote:
Just make a state insurer already and stop with the half-assed solutions, America.
Oh, and don't copy-paste chain emails into blogs.
This is my english paper, not a copy/paste job. I just felt like sharing it.
|
Apologies, I thought from the bad formatting it was a copy/paste job.
Anyway, I agree with the principle of your argument so there you go!
|
On December 06 2011 01:32 bonifaceviii wrote:
Apologies, I thought from the bad formatting it was a copy/paste job.
Anyway, I agree with the principle of your argument so there you go!
I guess technically it was copy/pasted. I just copy/pasted from word, not email ^^
|
Great post, articulates my feelings on the matter better than I ever could.
Heathcare needs a lot of work, but not at this cost.
|
We do not share the same opinion on freedom, being free and govermental duties and responsibilities. I suppose that you are happy to live in the free U.S.A. while I strongly prefer my enslaved self in austria 
1/5 for effort.
|
I don't see how the individual mandate is any different from other tax credits. Is the homeowner tax credit equivalent to forcing people to buy houses?
The purpose of the individual mandate is to allow health insurance to avoid the insurance death spiral and allow health insurance to cover pre-existing conditions. Without an individual mandate, private heatlh insurance doesn't really work.
Of course, there's a much better argument for single payer, but politically this does not seem to be in the cards.
|
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act. Your whole premise that the individual mandate will turn all of us into "serfs" is kind of laughable. No one is sacrificing any freedoms. At it's worst, the individual mandate is just another extra tax (while I would argue that really it's not even an extra tax since everybody gets sick and will require medical care at some points in their life). Heck by your reasoning you can call any penalty "an inactivity regulation." I don't register for the SSS (an inactivity on my part) I get thrown in jail. Therefore the government is already regulating inactivity. So like you say yourself since the governement has the power of the draft (something all the founding fathers agreed on) the government can charge you for not letting you die of your ailments. You may not like it, but your exaggeration of the facts are not warranted. As I mentioned previously if you want to look at something where we really did lose our freedoms to the government The Patriot Act really can create a police state and Obama extended it for another 4 years. I think you should have written a paper on that.
|
On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act.
Because illegally phone-tapping citizens without a warrant and detaining people without due process and all that other fun stuff is Freedom, and making sure that everyone gets the healthcare they deserve is evil, communistic, anti-america, etc.
|
On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul and every other civil libertarian is against the patriot act and the NDAA. I guess one could consider them conservative.
|
On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act. Your whole premise that the individual mandate will turn all of us into "serfs" is kind of laughable. No one is sacrificing any freedoms. At it's worst, the individual mandate is just another extra tax (while I would argue that really it's not even an extra tax since everybody gets sick and will require medical care at some points in their life). Heck by your reasoning you can call any penalty "an inactivity regulation." I don't register for the SSS (an inactivity on my part) I get thrown in jail. Therefore the government is already regulating inactivity. So like you say yourself since the governement has the power of the draft (something all the founding fathers agreed on) the government can charge you for not letting you die of your ailments. You may not like it, but your exaggeration of the facts are not warranted. As I mentioned previously if you want to look at something where we really did lose our freedoms to the government The Patriot Act really can create a police state and Obama extended it for another 4 years. I think you should have written a paper on that.
President Obama, in honoring his promise of no new taxes, specifically said there are no taxes on the people contained within the ACA. The bill itself is careful to avoid such language and defines a penalty, not a tax, for failing to comply with the individual mandate.
However, this is not a debate about health care. It is a debate about what Government can and cannot do legally.
Never before has Congress attempted to regulate inactivity. The Constitution does not imply such a power exists. The Constitution does not expressly grant Congress such a power, and there is no legal precedent for ordering the citizenry to enter into contractual relationships with a private company.
The Constitution defines individual liberty and freedom and places limitations on the powers of Government. Congress can can not disregard the Constitution and legislate based on convenience. If they could, then there are no limitations on Government and what they can do in the name of regulation. Government effectively gains all the discretionary power of a king if they are able to order the citizenry to do whatever suits them. The sovereignty would no longer rest with the people and instead would rest with Government effectively reducing the citizenry to subjects of their Government.
I think everyone would agree that children going hungry is a terrible thing. Should Government be allowed to force citizens to buy groceries from [insert grocery store here] for poor people? Obviously, the answer is no. Instead Government properly exercises their power to tax to regulate poverty. If Government wants to regulate health care they should look into constitutional alternatives to accomplish their goals.
|
On December 06 2011 10:24 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act. Your whole premise that the individual mandate will turn all of us into "serfs" is kind of laughable. No one is sacrificing any freedoms. At it's worst, the individual mandate is just another extra tax (while I would argue that really it's not even an extra tax since everybody gets sick and will require medical care at some points in their life). Heck by your reasoning you can call any penalty "an inactivity regulation." I don't register for the SSS (an inactivity on my part) I get thrown in jail. Therefore the government is already regulating inactivity. So like you say yourself since the governement has the power of the draft (something all the founding fathers agreed on) the government can charge you for not letting you die of your ailments. You may not like it, but your exaggeration of the facts are not warranted. As I mentioned previously if you want to look at something where we really did lose our freedoms to the government The Patriot Act really can create a police state and Obama extended it for another 4 years. I think you should have written a paper on that. President Obama, in honoring his promise of no new taxes, specifically said there are no taxes on the people contained within the ACA. The bill itself is careful to avoid such language and defines a penalty, not a tax, for failing to comply with the individual mandate. However, this is not a debate about health care. It is a debate about what Government can and cannot do legally. Never before has Congress attempted to regulate inactivity. The Constitution does not imply such a power exists. The Constitution does not expressly grant Congress such a power, and there is no legal precedent for ordering the citizenry to enter into contractual relationships with a private company. The Constitution defines individual liberty and freedom and places limitations on the powers of Government. Congress can can not disregard the Constitution and legislate based on convenience. If they could, then there are no limitations on Government and what they can do in the name of regulation. Government effectively gains all the discretionary power of a king if they are able to order the citizenry to do whatever suits them. The sovereignty would no longer rest with the people and instead would rest with Government effectively reducing the citizenry to subjects of their Government. I think everyone would agree that children going hungry is a terrible thing. Should Government be allowed to force citizens to buy groceries from [insert grocery store here] for poor people? Obviously, the answer is no. Instead Government properly exercises their power to tax to regulate poverty. If Government wants to regulate health care they should look into constitutional alternatives to accomplish their goals.
Really? The government doesn't regulate inactivity? Well if you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail right? Surely a choice not to do something is still a choice? Are you saying that the government cannot regulate a citizen's choice? That happens all the time. I am not very good at legalese but surely if the government is using the commerce clause as their premise, they are saying that choosing to not partake in health insurance is like choosing to not partake in paying taxes. Can you explain it in simple english please.
|
On December 06 2011 10:50 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:24 Joedaddy wrote:On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act. Your whole premise that the individual mandate will turn all of us into "serfs" is kind of laughable. No one is sacrificing any freedoms. At it's worst, the individual mandate is just another extra tax (while I would argue that really it's not even an extra tax since everybody gets sick and will require medical care at some points in their life). Heck by your reasoning you can call any penalty "an inactivity regulation." I don't register for the SSS (an inactivity on my part) I get thrown in jail. Therefore the government is already regulating inactivity. So like you say yourself since the governement has the power of the draft (something all the founding fathers agreed on) the government can charge you for not letting you die of your ailments. You may not like it, but your exaggeration of the facts are not warranted. As I mentioned previously if you want to look at something where we really did lose our freedoms to the government The Patriot Act really can create a police state and Obama extended it for another 4 years. I think you should have written a paper on that. President Obama, in honoring his promise of no new taxes, specifically said there are no taxes on the people contained within the ACA. The bill itself is careful to avoid such language and defines a penalty, not a tax, for failing to comply with the individual mandate. However, this is not a debate about health care. It is a debate about what Government can and cannot do legally. Never before has Congress attempted to regulate inactivity. The Constitution does not imply such a power exists. The Constitution does not expressly grant Congress such a power, and there is no legal precedent for ordering the citizenry to enter into contractual relationships with a private company. The Constitution defines individual liberty and freedom and places limitations on the powers of Government. Congress can can not disregard the Constitution and legislate based on convenience. If they could, then there are no limitations on Government and what they can do in the name of regulation. Government effectively gains all the discretionary power of a king if they are able to order the citizenry to do whatever suits them. The sovereignty would no longer rest with the people and instead would rest with Government effectively reducing the citizenry to subjects of their Government. I think everyone would agree that children going hungry is a terrible thing. Should Government be allowed to force citizens to buy groceries from [insert grocery store here] for poor people? Obviously, the answer is no. Instead Government properly exercises their power to tax to regulate poverty. If Government wants to regulate health care they should look into constitutional alternatives to accomplish their goals. Really? The government doesn't regulate inactivity? Well if you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail right? Surely a choice not to do something is still a choice? Are you saying that the government cannot regulate a citizen's choice? That happens all the time. I am not very good at legalese but surely if the government is using the commerce clause as their premise, they are saying that choosing to not partake in health insurance is like choosing to not partake in paying taxes. Can you explain it in simple english please.
It is true that if you choose not to pay your taxes there are consequences including jail time. However, the power to tax is expressly granted by the Constitution in the 16th amendment.
By virtue of the necessary and proper clause (also in the constitution and sometimes referred to as the elastic clause) "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
Because the Constitution definitively gives Congress the powers of taxation, they also have the powers (as stated in the Necessary and Proper clause) to make laws that are necessary (and proper) for carrying into execution its power to tax (i.e. monetary fines and potentially jail time).
The difference between "going to jail for not paying taxes" and "being ordered to enter into contractual relationships with private companies" is huge. Taxes are both necessary for the operation of government and traditionally recognized as well as being constitutionally sound.
No supporter of the Affordable Care Act is arguing the individual mandate is constitutional according to the original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause. Instead they rely heavily on subsequent case law and the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Necessary and Proper clause.
However, because Congress has never before attempted to compel citizens to enter into contractual relationships with a private company there can be no case law that supports such a power. Instead they rely on a broad generalization of what commerce regulation means and their implied powers to execute their regulation of commerce.
What I am saying is that if left unchecked by the Constitution there are no limits to what Congress can command the people to do in the name of regulating commerce.
|
The Affordable Care Act seeks to regulate inactivity by forcing people, who are otherwise inactive, to engage in economic activity
Where did the Act ever require everyone to be employed? Or did I read that sentence improperly? If you are going to make a claim as large as people are forced to work (hence "reduce them to serfs"), you better back that up. There're legitimate arguments over whether this law is within the boundaries of interstate commerce, but this type of encroachment are certainly not unprecedented.
|
On December 06 2011 12:27 Primadog wrote:Show nested quote +The Affordable Care Act seeks to regulate inactivity by forcing people, who are otherwise inactive, to engage in economic activity Where did the Act ever require everyone to be employed? Or did I read that sentence improperly? If you are going to make a claim as large as people are forced to work (hence "reduce them to serfs"), you better back that up. There're legitimate arguments over whether this law is within the boundaries of interstate commerce, but this type of encroachment are certainly not unprecedented.
I think you misunderstood? I didn't say the act required people to be employed. I said the act required people who are otherwise inactive (i.e. chose not to pay for health insurance) to engage in economic activity (i.e. those people are now forced to give their money to private companies to pay for health insurance.)
|
On December 06 2011 11:57 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:50 Probulous wrote:On December 06 2011 10:24 Joedaddy wrote:On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act. Your whole premise that the individual mandate will turn all of us into "serfs" is kind of laughable. No one is sacrificing any freedoms. At it's worst, the individual mandate is just another extra tax (while I would argue that really it's not even an extra tax since everybody gets sick and will require medical care at some points in their life). Heck by your reasoning you can call any penalty "an inactivity regulation." I don't register for the SSS (an inactivity on my part) I get thrown in jail. Therefore the government is already regulating inactivity. So like you say yourself since the governement has the power of the draft (something all the founding fathers agreed on) the government can charge you for not letting you die of your ailments. You may not like it, but your exaggeration of the facts are not warranted. As I mentioned previously if you want to look at something where we really did lose our freedoms to the government The Patriot Act really can create a police state and Obama extended it for another 4 years. I think you should have written a paper on that. President Obama, in honoring his promise of no new taxes, specifically said there are no taxes on the people contained within the ACA. The bill itself is careful to avoid such language and defines a penalty, not a tax, for failing to comply with the individual mandate. However, this is not a debate about health care. It is a debate about what Government can and cannot do legally. Never before has Congress attempted to regulate inactivity. The Constitution does not imply such a power exists. The Constitution does not expressly grant Congress such a power, and there is no legal precedent for ordering the citizenry to enter into contractual relationships with a private company. The Constitution defines individual liberty and freedom and places limitations on the powers of Government. Congress can can not disregard the Constitution and legislate based on convenience. If they could, then there are no limitations on Government and what they can do in the name of regulation. Government effectively gains all the discretionary power of a king if they are able to order the citizenry to do whatever suits them. The sovereignty would no longer rest with the people and instead would rest with Government effectively reducing the citizenry to subjects of their Government. I think everyone would agree that children going hungry is a terrible thing. Should Government be allowed to force citizens to buy groceries from [insert grocery store here] for poor people? Obviously, the answer is no. Instead Government properly exercises their power to tax to regulate poverty. If Government wants to regulate health care they should look into constitutional alternatives to accomplish their goals. Really? The government doesn't regulate inactivity? Well if you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail right? Surely a choice not to do something is still a choice? Are you saying that the government cannot regulate a citizen's choice? That happens all the time. I am not very good at legalese but surely if the government is using the commerce clause as their premise, they are saying that choosing to not partake in health insurance is like choosing to not partake in paying taxes. Can you explain it in simple english please. It is true that if you choose not to pay your taxes there are consequences including jail time. However, the power to tax is expressly granted by the Constitution in the 16th amendment. By virtue of the necessary and proper clause (also in the constitution and sometimes referred to as the elastic clause) "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Because the Constitution definitively gives Congress the powers of taxation, they also have the powers (as stated in the Necessary and Proper clause) to make laws that are necessary (and proper) for carrying into execution its power to tax (i.e. monetary fines and potentially jail time). The difference between "going to jail for not paying taxes" and "being ordered to enter into contractual relationships with private companies" is huge. Taxes are both necessary for the operation of government and traditionally recognized as well as being constitutionally sound. No supporter of the Affordable Care Act is arguing the individual mandate is constitutional according to the original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause. Instead they rely heavily on subsequent case law and the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Necessary and Proper clause. However, because Congress has never before attempted to compel citizens to enter into contractual relationships with a private company there can be no case law that supports such a power. Instead they rely on a broad generalization of what commerce regulation means and their implied powers to execute their regulation of commerce. What I am saying is that if left unchecked by the Constitution there are no limits to what Congress can command the people to do in the name of regulating commerce.
OK I think I get it. The government is allowed to force people to pay taxes (which are contractual agreements with the government, you pay tax we pay for services) but is not allowed to force people into private contractual agreements. Mmm interesting. So this all comes down to what "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" actually means.
Does "regulate" allow the government to force people to partake in the industry? Are people who decide not to purchase insurance involved in commerce? You would think not. Am I missing something?
|
On December 06 2011 12:31 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 12:27 Primadog wrote:The Affordable Care Act seeks to regulate inactivity by forcing people, who are otherwise inactive, to engage in economic activity Where did the Act ever require everyone to be employed? Or did I read that sentence improperly? If you are going to make a claim as large as people are forced to work (hence "reduce them to serfs"), you better back that up. There're legitimate arguments over whether this law is within the boundaries of interstate commerce, but this type of encroachment are certainly not unprecedented. I think you misunderstood? I didn't say the act required people to be employed. I said the act required people who are otherwise inactive (i.e. chose not to pay for health insurance) to engage in economic activity (i.e. those people are now forced to give their money to private companies to pay for health insurance.)
Ah, that explains why it popped out of nowhere. Hopefully you can rephrase that so others like me will stop misunderstanding it. Although I disagree with your stance, overall, I think your arguments are well thought out, even if it repeats the same talk points.
|
On December 06 2011 12:33 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 11:57 Joedaddy wrote:On December 06 2011 10:50 Probulous wrote:On December 06 2011 10:24 Joedaddy wrote:On December 06 2011 07:00 FryBender wrote:
I don't get it. Why is there such an outcry among conservatives (I'm going to assume that you are a conservative based on the premise of your article and some key phrases you use like original intent etc...) against the ACA and yet I never heard anyone from that side speaking up against the Patriot act. Your whole premise that the individual mandate will turn all of us into "serfs" is kind of laughable. No one is sacrificing any freedoms. At it's worst, the individual mandate is just another extra tax (while I would argue that really it's not even an extra tax since everybody gets sick and will require medical care at some points in their life). Heck by your reasoning you can call any penalty "an inactivity regulation." I don't register for the SSS (an inactivity on my part) I get thrown in jail. Therefore the government is already regulating inactivity. So like you say yourself since the governement has the power of the draft (something all the founding fathers agreed on) the government can charge you for not letting you die of your ailments. You may not like it, but your exaggeration of the facts are not warranted. As I mentioned previously if you want to look at something where we really did lose our freedoms to the government The Patriot Act really can create a police state and Obama extended it for another 4 years. I think you should have written a paper on that. President Obama, in honoring his promise of no new taxes, specifically said there are no taxes on the people contained within the ACA. The bill itself is careful to avoid such language and defines a penalty, not a tax, for failing to comply with the individual mandate. However, this is not a debate about health care. It is a debate about what Government can and cannot do legally. Never before has Congress attempted to regulate inactivity. The Constitution does not imply such a power exists. The Constitution does not expressly grant Congress such a power, and there is no legal precedent for ordering the citizenry to enter into contractual relationships with a private company. The Constitution defines individual liberty and freedom and places limitations on the powers of Government. Congress can can not disregard the Constitution and legislate based on convenience. If they could, then there are no limitations on Government and what they can do in the name of regulation. Government effectively gains all the discretionary power of a king if they are able to order the citizenry to do whatever suits them. The sovereignty would no longer rest with the people and instead would rest with Government effectively reducing the citizenry to subjects of their Government. I think everyone would agree that children going hungry is a terrible thing. Should Government be allowed to force citizens to buy groceries from [insert grocery store here] for poor people? Obviously, the answer is no. Instead Government properly exercises their power to tax to regulate poverty. If Government wants to regulate health care they should look into constitutional alternatives to accomplish their goals. Really? The government doesn't regulate inactivity? Well if you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail right? Surely a choice not to do something is still a choice? Are you saying that the government cannot regulate a citizen's choice? That happens all the time. I am not very good at legalese but surely if the government is using the commerce clause as their premise, they are saying that choosing to not partake in health insurance is like choosing to not partake in paying taxes. Can you explain it in simple english please. It is true that if you choose not to pay your taxes there are consequences including jail time. However, the power to tax is expressly granted by the Constitution in the 16th amendment. By virtue of the necessary and proper clause (also in the constitution and sometimes referred to as the elastic clause) "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Because the Constitution definitively gives Congress the powers of taxation, they also have the powers (as stated in the Necessary and Proper clause) to make laws that are necessary (and proper) for carrying into execution its power to tax (i.e. monetary fines and potentially jail time). The difference between "going to jail for not paying taxes" and "being ordered to enter into contractual relationships with private companies" is huge. Taxes are both necessary for the operation of government and traditionally recognized as well as being constitutionally sound. No supporter of the Affordable Care Act is arguing the individual mandate is constitutional according to the original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause. Instead they rely heavily on subsequent case law and the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Necessary and Proper clause. However, because Congress has never before attempted to compel citizens to enter into contractual relationships with a private company there can be no case law that supports such a power. Instead they rely on a broad generalization of what commerce regulation means and their implied powers to execute their regulation of commerce. What I am saying is that if left unchecked by the Constitution there are no limits to what Congress can command the people to do in the name of regulating commerce. Does "regulate" allow the government to force people to partake in the industry?
The short answer is no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
