None of which requires that health care be a “states rights” issue rather than a federal “promote the general welfare” and “regulate interstate commerce” one. Or did you have something else in mind?
Ah, yes, it’s just the usual Pavlovian shit again. No surprise. Or did you have a point in mind by claiming it’s about Obama himself? As it stands, to quote a wise man, you don’t.
Hyperbolize much?
In my state at least, to drive, you just have to demonstrate “financial responsibility”. You can buy insurance, you can post a bond, and I think there are a couple of other options.
I agree, it doesn’t require that states only deal with it. But that doesn’t mean that the federal government should, or can, deal with the issue the same way.
Huh? The federal plan is Obama’s. You know, the President. I was simply laying out what would be a more apt analogy. Talk about salivating when the bell is rung…:rolleyes:
You may be comparing apples to oranges. First, I presume you are specifically referring to the individual mandate in Obamacare.
It is important to understand Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is separate, distinct, and different from Congress’s power to impose taxes and then spend those taxes in some manner. The individual mandate is not an exercise of Congress’s power to tax and spend but rather an effort by Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The fact Congress has the constitutional authority to tax and spend for one program does not lead to the conclusion they have the authority to mandate people engage in some activity under a separate, independent, and distinct power elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
The opening phrase of Article I, Section 8 reads as, "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…, and elsewhere in Article I, "Representatives and *direct Taxes *shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union.. We also have the 16th Amendment, which does not create any power of taxation, or any new power of taxation, which previously did not exist, but permits the imposition of income taxes without the requirements imposed for direct taxation. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1
(1916),
So, Congress has the authority to impose taxes. The U.S. Constitution contemplates two forms of taxes, direct and indirect taxes. A direct tax under the U.S. Constitution is a tax on property because of its ownership or a capitation (head tax). An indirect tax is known as an event tax. The picture here is Congress is vested with the authority to impose taxes, and raise revenue with those taxes. You do not have any legitimate argument to assert Congress lacks the authority to tax you. Congress may lack the authority to tax you in some manner, but Congress, generally speaking, has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to impose taxes on people, as the plain text of the U.S. Constitution clearly demonstrates.
Congress is also vested with the authority to spend those taxes in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Congress is vested with the authority to spend those taxes to raise armies, to establish post offices and post roads, to create federal courts, to maintain a navy, and so forth. Congress is also permitted to spend those taxes to “provide for…the general welfare of the United States.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Social Security was justified as a *tax and spending *program under the general welfare clause in Article I, Section 8. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
So, Social Security is, essentially, nothing more than taking the taxes raised and spending them in a specific manner, which is vastly different than the individual mandate, which is a non-taxation and spending provision in Obamacare.
So, while Social Security may be constitutional as a tax and spend scheme, the individual may not be a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Excellent post! Very well explained.
Though I think you inadvertently omitted the word “mandate” in the last paragraph (after “individual”).
Then your “observation” is only your personal preference, not a fact of constitutional law. Got it?
And that of the Democratic party, and, very recently, that of the sane wing of the Republican Party as well, and that of the majority of Americans (if one includes the large number who don’t think it goes far enough). Yet your emotions about Obama are what drive your views on this topic, obviously, not any responsible consideration about what our national policy ought to be or even how they come into being.
Which means you don’t have a point there, either. We deal in reality here, ya know.
But to conclude that it isn’t requires simply ignoring the better part of a century’s worth of jurisprudence on the subject. Not that that will give pause to Scalia, Thomas, and the other partisan activists on the court, of course.
A century worth of jurisprudence which has never addressed this factual issue before. So there is not, as you suggest, precedent which compels the particular outcome of constitutionality.
God, you’re pathetic. Are you really not aware that the constitution lays out specific things that the federal government can do and that the rest of governance is the repsonsibility of the states. You might want to read the thing that’s identified by this term you throw around without evidently knowing what the heck it is: U.S. Constitution. Look it up.
No I don’t have a point there. Because I asked what your gibberish was supposed to convey. Your response—more gibberish. Trying reading what my positions are instead of taking them with you into your cartoon land. But do tell Der Trihs I said “hi”.
I never suggested that anything “compels” a particular outcome; in fact I suggested that several Justices would not feel so compelled regardless of precedent. Please, Counselor. :rolleyes:
Personal comments don’t belong in GD. Stick to attacking the arguments.
Whoops. I thought I was in the Pit when I wrote that. My apologies.