It is astounding how casually these leftist pundits are regarding giving up our individual liberties. If it is constitutional to force citizens to buy health insurance from private companies then the constitution has no meaning at all. Health insurance in its current form didn't even exist until the late 20's.

How can it be the framers intended to grant the government the power to force the purchase of something that didn't even exist at the time? What if someone cannot afford the coverage? Should they go to jail? What if they are wealthy enough to self-insure? It is preposterous to think that you can lawfully force people to buy anything.

Does this fool Ruth know that she is the frog on a slow boil?

Just today WAPO announced that it is closing all the national bureaus and laying off people.

With such incredulous twisters like making Health care as constitutional right, and her fellow buffoons Dionne and Eugene Robinson on the payroll, the day will come sooner for the WAPO printers to go silent.

When that happens, these so called intelligent and professional air heads will greet the news with UNEXPECTED surprise.

In 17th C. England citizens were fined if they did not attend church. Indeed, they were fined to the degree that they often forfeited their property, including domicile. Of course it was all legal. So, to escape this travesty they migrated to New England. The rest is history, of course. A new travesty that may appear legal may not be just. Mandated health fees? Does the word revolution sound familiar?

Car insurance is only mandatory if you want to drive. Health insurance will only be required if you want to live, that's why it's called the government OPTION...

As an independent voter I don't want my health decisions and records in the hands of the government no matter which party is in power. Democrats pushing something so deeply unpopular so hard seem short-sighted and forgetful. They ignore history and the fact that power changes hands and Republicans will control these institutions at some point. What then?

I'm glad to see some good avdice for worried politicians who need to answer their outraged constituents who ask if the constitution even allows this?
Tell them that a technicality, a clause that has never before been interpreted this broadly before is what lets you sell them out.

You just tell them that.

So, where is the ability of the government to force people to engage in commerce in the constitution? They may be able to regulate commerce, but what about the lack of commerce on an individual by individual basis for nothing more than being an American? This is not insurance or a license to use the privilege of driving, this is simply insurance for existing?

Typical liberal answer: "It's constitutional because we say so."

B.S.! It's time to stand up to the kleptocrats and say "NO MORE!"

"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written..." -Chief Justice John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison 1803)

I think from legal viewpoint it can be compared with car insurance. Is it compulsory? And if it is not, what happens if you create damage or injure someone driving uninsured car? In same way you can impound property or imprison someone who refuses to pay health care insurance and afterward refuses to pay the bill.

Then, if it is compulsory, there must be a way to prevent extortionist prices from health insurance and health care providers. Government-run non-profit (a.k.a. Public Option) is one idea. Anyone have better one?

If pointing a gun at an innocent citizen and forcing him to buy something he doesn't want is constitutional - your constitution is useless. In this case, it isn't - but the Totalitar... I mean, Democratic Party is doing its best to make it so. As did the Republicans before them.

Well I guess Ruth told us.

:-o

Sounds like you must have been smoking some marijuana before you wrote this left wing story. Keep up the good work and 2010 we will toss out all your left wing friends on the hill and in 2012 we will toss out your King. It's amazing how twisted the left is on trashing our Constitution to get their ends.

I think the president will be fine unless his approval ratings dip below 50%.
Oh crap.

:-o

Ruth,
Please read the Constitution. It is fairly simple to read and comprehend, and at one point was required reading by eigth graders, before the liberals stopped teaching it. No where does it state "Free Healthcare for Everyone". It is people like you that have eroded our freedoms with your take from those that contribute, and give to those that sit on their asses. Why don't all of you people that want this country to be like Europe just relocate there?

Just another example of how staggeringly over reaching the congress has become. There is no way the founders ever intended congress to be given this kind of power.

The interstate commerce clause has become an excuse for trying to do whatever congress wants to do at the moment.

The constitution is designed to be a living document by amendment, not by deciding that over time the words mean different things than they did to our founders.

The Federalist Papers are quite clear that even the general welfare cause applies only to those powers enumerated in the constitution.

Of course, I know it is impolitic to look at the founders intent.

When an idiot from the Washington Composte argues that something is constitutional ...

We know that it must be highly unconstitutional ... as this is the state propaganda machine gearing up it's detestable engine to change the mind of the injustices on the supreme court.


Isn't Washington Composte bankrupt yet?

Even if you are a far-left socialist who cares nothing about Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, this mandate provision makes no sense even from a socialist perspective. Why throw people in jail for not purchasing health insurance but not throw them in jail for failing to exercise or failing to purchase fresh fruit and fiber and low-fat food and vitamin supplements. Better yet, jail them for buying cigarettes or breakfast cereal with sugar for their kids. There are many things that can cause a person to get sick and be a burden to the so-called health system, but Obama, Ried, and Pelosi only worry about insurance and not about actual health. The problem with unlimited social engineering is that it can backfire. If this bill is so great, how come there is no mandate that all Members of Congress must also obey all the provisions of this bill that they want to impose on the rest of American citizens? How many drug addicts show up in emergency rooms every day and burden the system. So the addicts don't worry about going to jail for breaking laws to support their habit but they WILL worry about breaking a law that says they must buy insurance? That is crazy. The bill drafters are not in touch with any concept of reality beyond their rigid ideological prison. Ken Royall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is astounding how casually these leftist
> pundits are regarding giving up our individual
> liberties. If it is constitutional to force
> citizens to buy health insurance from private
> companies then the constitution has no meaning at
> all. Health insurance in its current form didn't
> even exist until the late 20's.
>
> How can it be the framers intended to grant the
> government the power to force the purchase of
> something that didn't even exist at the time?
> What if someone cannot afford the coverage?
> Should they go to jail? What if they are wealthy
> enough to self-insure? It is preposterous to
> think that you can lawfully force people to buy
> anything.

"Congress clearly has authority to, in effect, require employees to purchase health insurance"

We the people can also vote them out of office. Sounds to me like the author believes we work for them. Wake up America and take back our country.

I know this is off-topic but its too important not to mention:
[www.dw-world.de]

Let me (not legally educated but I will non-modestly admit well-educated) refute your arguements:

1) The mandate for car insurance is state-legislated, not federally-legislated.
2) The car insurance mandate is for liability ONLY, not to cover damages to your own car.
3) The car insurance mandate doesn't cover things like oil-changes.
4) There is no inter-state commerce from health insurance (I wish there was!)
5) This is a mandate OR penalty approach (unconstitutional) versus a tax-and-credit approach (that would be constitutional much like the way they got states to make the drinking age 21.)

If this is Constitutional, why can't the government mandate what else we purchase, or where we purchase it? But they could give us tax credits for doing anything they want. For example, you currently get a tax credit for purchasing a home (with conditions), you also get a tax credit if you buy a new car (but not a used one), or you got a credit for a limited time for trading in a "clunker" for a new car. I think all of these things are bad ideas, but not a single one is unconstitutional. If the government can mandate that a citizen purchase ANYTHING just because they live here, the government has no limits to its power. And remember, the Democrats won't be in power forever--unless you think the nature of our government is changing to something Venezula-style.

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ... Sam Adams

That Sam, he sure knew how to turn a phrase.

So, the interstate commerce clause empowers Congress to force every citizen in the country to purchase a service, something it has never done before in history, regardless of whether it is wanted or needed by the individual, in the name of regulating commerce?

I'll take that bet.

"But the individual mandate is central to the larger effort to reform the insurance market. "

just because the above statement is cruicial to this boondoggle working, does not make the mandate right. this sentence, written by you, shows how truly weak your argument is. "JUST BECAUSE I SAID SO" does not make anything constitutional.

how sad the elimination of a person's libery can take its authority from such weak precedent, or, no precendent at all. the ICC, in my ignorant opinion, cannot regulate the action of the individual.

if a young, healthy person chooses to access the medical industry on a cash and carry basis, it does not mean the whole system is negatively affected. i went about 10 years without med ins. had a family of 3 kids at the time. paid cash. burdened no one. paid 10 k cash for the birth of one of my children. this was the decade of the 90's.

those who have burdened the system in the past, continue to do so by getting credits or vouchers to pay for basic policies. its probably cheaper for the med industry to write off these unrecoverable costs or pass them on to payers as they do now. has anyboby done this cost comparison yet? i am not saying the truly indigent should be excluded. i am saying there are cheaper ways to provide them med care.

the DEMs are off the wall if they believe they can make the individual mandate stand on a foundation of s , h, i, t.

Walter Dellinger and Laurance Tribe are ideologues. The "Interstate Commerce" Clause is the most misabused part of the Constitution. To extrapolate the "regulating commerce" to imposing a mandate to purchase a good or service would mean Congress could force Americans to buy any and all goods and services. So whats the purpose of the 50 states existing? As far as being forced to purchase car insurance, that is not a comparabale to a mandate to purchase health insurance. First, one must first have a car for the requirement of car insurance to be purchased. Second, the purpose of car insurance is for a person who has been wronged by a driver to have liabiity damages covered by the driver at fault. Lastly and here is the kicker. All 50 states have laws stating you're NOT allowed to purchase health insurance from an insurer outside your own state. So how the hell is health insurance interstate commerce?

Latest Rasmussen (most accurate 2008 US Pres):

36% Support Reckless 2.5 Trillion 2000 pg ObamaReidPelosiCare (with Govt Option)

- Constitutional or not....

US Senate, one of You Stand Up and Defend the Will of the US People:

**** "Kill This Horrific Bill" !!! *****

Pedro Carleial Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If pointing a gun at an innocent citizen and
> forcing him to buy something he doesn't want is
> constitutional - your constitution is useless. In
> this case, it isn't - but the Totalitar... I mean,
> Democratic Party is doing its best to make it so.
> As did the Republicans before them.

last sentence is ominously true.

GOP sops to industry friends are usually give-a-ways to them like deregulation to rape and pillage. much more subtle and legal. DEMs are dropping all pretense and declaring USA citizens to be vassals of the big gov't\big business elite.

Unfortunately, the tax is constitutional even if the mandate isn't. Nothing can stop Congress from imposing a 2.5% income surtax, and allowing a deduction/rebate for those who have "acceptable" health insurance. Constitutional problems only arise if Congress tries to punish the lack of health insurance directly, outside the tax system. If they prosecuted you for lack of insurance, even though you paid the tax, there might be valid constitutional argumants.

Just because a court has overstepped its boundaries before doesn't make it correct....The commerce clause was meant to prevent states from imposing tariffs on other states. There is no way that should be extrapolated to mean that the FEDERAL government could require their citizens to purchase a consumer good.

The individual mandate is just a ruse. They know it is unconstitutional to force people to purchase health insurance, so when this fails the test, they will turn around and say, "Fine. Then, we will just have to implement universal health care and tax you for it."

Unfortunately, taxing citizens for services they don't want is pretty much settled law in this country.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Therefore, unless this is an income tax (allowed under the 16th Amendement), I do not see how a tax premised upon the purchase of health insurance meets the requirements of Article 1, Section 9. Of course, the tax proposed by Congress is not an income tax, because the applicability of the tax is premised upon the purchase of insurance, not the earning of income. Also, it cannot be considered the equivalent of a sales tax, because it is not collected as part of a sales transaction (instead, it only applies if someone fails to purchase insurance).

Amen,
SamAdams1776

For the last time... stop comparing health insurance to car insurance. Driving is voluntary. If I don't want to be obligated to buy car insurance, I can CHOOSE not to drive. Period.

Slimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the last time... stop comparing health
> insurance to car insurance. Driving is voluntary.
> If I don't want to be obligated to buy car
> insurance, I can CHOOSE not to drive. Period.
Insurance is insurance- Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed and known small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss.


It is idiotic for us to spend trillions on say 40-60 million uninsured as if we had an abundant supply of nurses and doctors. I bet we have thousands of extra nurses and doctors in government run hospitals huh! Think about it people- How do you keep up with the demand? You limit what you provide0 rationing

hdc77494 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can be forced to buy insurance to be a
> citizen, what can the government NOT force you to
> buy? In other words, are there limits to
> government at all? The answer is, the federal
> government's power IS limited. Auto insurance is a
> bad example. One, states force you to buy it, but
> only to protect others on the road from you, and
> the laws are so weak, you still need to buy
> uninsured motorist coverage. Yes, you can be
> forced to pay a tax, on income. Health insurance
> mandates force a tax regardless of income. Your
> local doctor doesn't, and cannot practice across
> state lines. The fed doesn't regulate doctors,
> your state does.
> The only way this will make past the supreme court
> is if Obama can stack the court before a test case
> makes it to the court. Forcing you to spend $$ in
> the private market is not within the Feds power.

If you don't think SCOTUS could OK this, look at Kelo v. New London. There are 5 justices on the supreme court who are more about making law than defending the constitution.

JD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides, if they force us to buy health insurance
> and the SCOTUS upholds the mandate, they can force
> us to buy anything that affect the greater good as
> they see it.
> They can kiss my ....

JD,

Your next car will be a GM. Obama insists...

Bull s***! There is nothing constitutional about this government dictating that people buy health insurance. My comment to legislators has been that they had better start building more prisons so that all of the naughty, non-compliant Americans can be incarcerated because they refuse to purchase government-mandated insurance. The poster that said that the time is right for revolution is absolutely correct.

Funny, I never read anything about healthcare in the Constitution. I bet that idiot writer never read the Constitution at all. So be it, enjoy your ignorant bliss! We the People are coming and we're VERY ticked off.
I wonder if the WAPO will even be around to report the loss of a Democrat majority in the House of Reps in 2010. I hope so, 'cause it'll be fun to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth as they rend their garments and wail like newborns!

Militarybooks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ms. Marcus is correct on some counts, but she only
> presents half the facts.
>
> First, there are other cases during the Depression
> that reached the opposite conclusion on various
> mandates, like Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
> States.
>
> Second, health insurance is not "interstate
> commerce" until someone participates, i.e.,
> purchases insurance. Just because Washington DC
> says it is doesn't make it so.


I believe there are some group plans that sell insurance across states lines already.


> And the most @#$%&, however, is that she failes to
> note that by NOT participating, the gov't can FINE
> AND SEND YOU TO JAIL. That makes one guilty for .
> . . not participating. That is a non-starter,
> constitutionally.
>
> Finally, if you remove the mandate, 10s of
> millions will not pay. And that will collapse the
> system.

Hey Militarybooks: how about some real-life examples of those group plans that SELL across state lines?

OmG !!!

RCP... Radical Leftist Obama's RCP Average Approval just fell below 50%...

- 49.7%.. and still falling !!!

I like how she points out that the wild interpretations of the Commerce Clause began under FDR. The Supreme Court was handing defeat after defeat to him until he threatened to add more justices to the court and pack it with his political cronies.

Here is the plain truth: the modern progressive movement is based on incrementally undermining and destroying the Constitution; getting it to say something that it does not mean and was never intended to mean by those who wrote it. There is an approved method for changing the Constitution: it's called 'passing an amendment', but since progressives know this process is difficult or impossible, they have little choice but to simply undermine the plain meaning of the document.

As many have said here: if a document whose express purpose was to limit the power of the Federal Government can be construed to give to that same Federal Government the power to compel someone by threat of deadly force to buy something in order to exist within the borders of the United States of America, we may as just burn it. It wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Dave T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Militarybooks: how about some real-life
> examples of those group plans that SELL across
> state lines?

I don't have specific examples, but the ERISA Act of 1974 allows businesses that self-insure their employees to include all employees in one health insurance pool, even if they live in different states. I lot of large companies chose to self-insure to remove the insurance middleman.

Ms. Marcus' understanding of the Constitution is only slightly less than Pat Buchanan's understanding of Bantu languages.

It's purpose is to establish a framework of government with enumerated (read LIMITED) powers; not to justify massive expansions of government under the guise of benevolence.

Try reading it for UNDERSTANDING, Ms. Marcus, and thank God for the wisdom in the framers who would spin in their graves at your misinterpretation of ther masterwork.

Militarybooks:

Not the same. I happen to be in on of those plans and know just how it works.

My "group" is located in California--and the policy is headquartered, negotiated and paid solely within that State. The group is not allowed (because of fed law) to select policies that are headquartered within another State. I can MAKE CLAIMS against my policy from another State (I live in Arizona) or even another Country. But this has nothing to do with where the "group" is located and what policies a are available to that group.

You are speaking of apples and oranges...a Calif group can only buy policies based in Calif.

It's not Militarybooks, I was responding to his post. If Microsoft collects premiums from employees in every state they have a presence in, and delivers healthcare benefits to employees in every state they have a presence in, how is that not interstate commerce?

Dave T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Militarybooks:
>
> Not the same. I happen to be in on of those plans
> and know just how it works.
>
> My "group" is located in California--and the
> policy is headquartered, negotiated and paid
> solely within that State. The group is not allowed
> (because of fed law) to select policies that are
> headquartered within another State. I can MAKE
> CLAIMS against my policy from another State (I
> live in Arizona) or even another Country. But this
> has nothing to do with where the "group" is
> located and what policies a are available to that
> group.
>
> You are speaking of apples and oranges...a Calif
> group can only buy policies based in Calif.

Say it all you want, does'nt make it true! Little things like right to privacy and property. Freedom to do with our bodies as we wish (abortion law anyone!)

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS


To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.


This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4thAmendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

I always find it amusing when people fall back onto that "safe" argument of what the framers "intended" in the original unaltered Constitution.

I guess, following that logic, we should repeal the following Amendments since the framers did not intend for them to be part of the Constitution in the first place:

Thirteenth Amendment (passed 1865, almost 80 years since the ratification of the Constitution) abolishing slavery

Fourteenth Amendment (passed 1868, 80 years since the ratification of the Constitution)
prohibiting states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law;

Fifteenth Amendment (passed 1870)
Prohibiting the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting

Seventeenth Amendment (passed 1913) - Establishing direct election of senators.

Nineteenth Amendment (passed 1920) - Prohibiting the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.

Twenty-second Amendment (passed 1951) - limiting the President to two terms in office.

Twenty-seventh Amendment (passed 1992, 200 years after the ratification of the Constitution)
Limiting Congressional pay raises.

Since the Framers never intended any of these amendments to be part of the Constitution, we should repeal them immediately.

If the framers did not intend said Amendments to be part of the Constitution, then why on earth did they provide a mechanism to amend it? Your argument makes no sense.

Pensive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always find it amusing when people fall back
> onto that "safe" argument of what the framers
> "intended" in the original unaltered
> Constitution.
>
> I guess, following that logic, we should repeal
> the following Amendments since the framers did not
> intend for them to be part of the Constitution in
> the first place:
>
> Thirteenth Amendment (passed 1865, almost 80 years
> since the ratification of the Constitution)
> abolishing slavery
>
> Fourteenth Amendment (passed 1868, 80 years since
> the ratification of the Constitution)
> prohibiting states from abridging citizens'
> privileges or immunities and rights to due process
> and the equal protection of the law;
>
> Fifteenth Amendment (passed 1870)
> Prohibiting the federal government and the states
> from using a citizen's race, color, or previous
> status as a slave as a qualification for voting
>
> Seventeenth Amendment (passed 1913) - Establishing
> direct election of senators.
>
> Nineteenth Amendment (passed 1920) - Prohibiting
> the federal government and the states from
> forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.
>
> Twenty-second Amendment (passed 1951) - limiting
> the President to two terms in office.
>
> Twenty-seventh Amendment (passed 1992, 200 years
> after the ratification of the Constitution)
> Limiting Congressional pay raises.
>
> Since the Framers never intended any of these
> amendments to be part of the Constitution, we
> should repeal them immediately.

I wonder what the guys who actually wrote our Constitution would think of the idea of forcing people to buy something against their will?

Actually, I have a confession to make - my entire life I have been converting oxygen into a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. With cap-and-trade pending, shouldn't I also be penalized for breathing?

DarthSidious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, the tax is constitutional even if
> the mandate isn't. Nothing can stop Congress from
> imposing a 2.5% income surtax, and allowing a
> deduction/rebate for those who have "acceptable"
> health insurance. Constitutional problems only
> arise if Congress tries to punish the lack of
> health insurance directly, outside the tax system.
> If they prosecuted you for lack of insurance, even
> though you paid the tax, there might be valid
> constitutional argumants.

Darthdude,

It is still a tax policy based on whether you purchased something. You may be correct in the final analysis, but I would have expected congress to take this tack on energy, etc. There they only offer the credit, not raise a tax and then rebate it.

Still, there is always the Duck test.

Pensive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always find it amusing when people fall back
> onto that "safe" argument of what the framers
> "intended" in the original unaltered
> Constitution.
>
> I guess, following that logic, we should repeal
> the following Amendments since the framers did not
> intend for them to be part of the Constitution in
> the first place:
>

No. The constitution clearly intends that changes can be made (essentially for whatever reasons) via the process outlined therein.

Driving around the blogs and comments pages the last few weeks, my impression is there is some white hot anger and it is all being launched from silos in every corner of America towards, where else, Washington.

Camille Paglia may have summed up the source of the anger in her recent Salon article:

""Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

How has "liberty" become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto," which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party -- but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan's 1964 song "Chimes of Freedom," made famous by the Byrds? And here's Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with "Freedom! Freedom!" Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song "A Different Drum," with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: "All I'm saying is I'm not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me."

But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it's positively pickled. """

Why doesn't Obama mandate gym memberships instead. It's a lot cheaper and might have some positive effect on overall health, unlike the plan to force us to buy health insurance.

On the other hand, once I, as a taxpayer, am responsible for subsidizing the health insurance of all, it might be fun to slap donuts out of peoples hands, and knock cigarettes out of their mouths......before the govt does, that is.

Ruth Marcus ignores the fact that the Congress' power to tax is not broad. The Congress can not impose a tax on one group to benefit another and do so arbitrarily otherwise the Congress could escape its limitations on power by claiming anything as a tax. The entire foundation of our government is on the limited nature of the federal government, thus the "tax code" can not be broadly used in that sense. Specifically, this mandate is imposed on the young and healthy in order to benefit the old and the sick. You simply can not do that.

Ms. Marcus is so flippant when it comes to congressional powers. He warm embrace of Wickard just shows that Congress can do anything it wants in the name of regulating interstate commerce. The Founding Fathers surely did not envision this when they wrote that clause into the Constistution. Maybe she can go back into her ivory tower in DC and sip on a latte.

Michael K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pensive Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Since the Framers never intended any of these
> amendments to be part of the Constitution, we
> should repeal them immediately."
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
> Actually, the framers intended for the
> Constitution to be changed by the amendment
> process. They did not intend for it to be
> rewritten at the whim of activist judges.

That was precisely the thrust of my typo-laden post above....

I'm not saying this article is wrong, but it is basically an argument that as long as you speak legalese anything goes. Even if it's obviously not commerce, if we're feeling creative today we'll pretend it's commerce. And if not, we'll just call it a tax. There was a time when a poll tax would be called a poll tax.

JD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know this is off-topic but its too important not
> to mention:
> [www.dw-world.de]
> ml


Interesting, JD.

People who live in Washington, DC and do not own a car still have an obligation to pay for car insurance. If they do not pay into the system, all car insurance premiums will be higher. It doesn't matter if the individual knows how to drive or owns a car, because that person benefits from the road systems, freight and public transportation systems that are available to all. So, start paying up city dwellers. And, if you can't provide proof of car insurance (with limits and coverages that Uncle establishes), the IRS will "fine" you at tax time. Sound fair?

When you learn to spell "constitutional" then perhaps we can begin an intelligent conversation. Is anyone in charge at the Wash. Post?

If you arrive at the emergency room without the ability to pay, the hospital does not have to treat you therefore affecting no one else. Healthcare is a service. Why should we be forced to pay for a service whether we use it or not?

Health Care reform, to pass the public option obama Has to negotiate, Competition between companies deprived in the republican states, regulation in swing states, and public option in democratics states. It is governeurs or senateurs of the concerned states which will decide on the implementation of the public option, on competitions between companies or the regulation. Or obama will never obtain the public option in the reform to the senate...

Pensive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always find it amusing when people fall back
> onto that "safe" argument of what the framers
> "intended" in the original unaltered
> Constitution.
>
> I guess, following that logic, we should repeal
> the following Amendments since the framers did not
> intend for them to be part of the Constitution in
> the first place:
>
> Thirteenth Amendment (passed 1865, almost 80 years
> since the ratification of the Constitution)
> abolishing slavery
>
> Fourteenth Amendment (passed 1868, 80 years since
> the ratification of the Constitution)
> prohibiting states from abridging citizens'
> privileges or immunities and rights to due process
> and the equal protection of the law;
>
> Fifteenth Amendment (passed 1870)
> Prohibiting the federal government and the states
> from using a citizen's race, color, or previous
> status as a slave as a qualification for voting
>
> Seventeenth Amendment (passed 1913) - Establishing
> direct election of senators.
>
> Nineteenth Amendment (passed 1920) - Prohibiting
> the federal government and the states from
> forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.
>
> Twenty-second Amendment (passed 1951) - limiting
> the President to two terms in office.
>
> Twenty-seventh Amendment (passed 1992, 200 years
> after the ratification of the Constitution)
> Limiting Congressional pay raises.
>
> Since the Framers never intended any of these
> amendments to be part of the Constitution, we
> should repeal them immediately.

Actually you are making a great point for the other side. The amendment process is something the framers put in place from the start, they knew full well there would be amendments but they deliberately set the bar high for changing the constitution as to avoid the mischief we are seeing now. What we have today is politicians "inventing" constitutional rights that never existed, they don't bother with the amendment process because they know their initiatives would not pass muster and be rejected.

Health Care reform, to pass the public option obama Has to negotiate, Competition between companies deprived in the republican states, regulation in swing states, and public option in democratics states. It is governeurs or senateurs of the concerned states which will decide on the implementation of the public option, on competitions between companies or the regulation. Or obama will never obtain the public option in the reform to the senate...
Say it to the president Barack Obama if you are democratic and if you want the option public on the bill. The republicans have nobody ideas, they are done.

The US Constitution allows congress to provide got the "general welfare" of the populace. This proposal is for a specific group of individuals, and excludes other citizens, namely members of congress and I don't know who else.
Since only specific individuals are targeted, and not the whole, it is unconstitutional. When EVERYONE, every citizen of the country is mandated for this proposal, then, maybe, it could be found to be constitutional.
You reached way too far in your attempt to rationalize this elitist piece of legislation.

Pensive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always find it amusing when people fall back
> onto that "safe" argument of what the framers
> "intended" in the original unaltered
> Constitution.
>
> I guess, following that logic, we should repeal
> the following Amendments since the framers did not
> intend for them to be part of the Constitution in
> the first place:

Numerous posters have already called you out for completely misunderstanding even the most basic Constitutional interpretive arguments. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were actually providing subtle commentary on the inadequacy of our public schools to properly educate our children on this nation's founding document. Bravo!

admrlcheese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under the logic presented here anything can effect
> interstate commerce. For example, if I eat
> cheeseburgers everyday chances are I'll have to
> have more medical care down the road which rises
> costs on everyone thus it effects interstate
> commerce and constitutionally congress can ban
> cheeseburgers.

You get it. That is exactly the theory the leftists in Congress are operating under. In the end, they get to regulate everything.

Indieman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "So... how long until you start arguing that the
> government has the right to coerce people to work,
> as a "solution" to unemployment? And decide what
> jobs they work, just as they are now proposing to
> decide what medical coverage they must have?'
>
Brilliant analogy. This encapsulates the failure in logic of those who argue the mandate is constitutional via the power to regulate interstate commerce.

K in St. Petersberg has a great analysis.

I would add, and you lawyers should check this out, a case that I think is a trump card: LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969). Leary successfully asserted his constitutional right against criminal self-incrimination because the act of paying the tax would be an admission of a crime. Since refusal to pay the individual mandate is made a crime by the proposal Marcus discusses, admission on one's tax return that he has not purchased a 'qualified' insurance policy can lead to prosecution if the individual is unable to pay the 'penalty', therefore I think the mechanism of using the tax code to mandate the purchase of health insurance violates the 5th Amendment, as long as criminal sanctions apply.

Additionally, where is the constitutional authority for the federal government to levy a penalty for failure purchase a good or service? Under the proposal no tax is imposed, only a penalty upon failure to comply by purchasing a qualified plan. I think Marcus's argument that the taxing authority can be used for this purpose in this instance falls short because a penalty is not a tax. What do you lawyers think?

What is good about this whole debate is it brings to the forefront a public discussion of the proper role of government, or more specifically, what should be the limits of government. It is clear that Supreme Court decisions like Wickard have taken us far beyond the Founder's concept of those limits. The most important result of the Tea Party and 9/12 Movement would be the passage of one or more constitutional amendments that overturn the last 70 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence and goes two steps further by ending the authority of the federal government to regulate individual behavior through the tax code (i.e., end social engineering) and requiring states to pass laws on threat of the loss of federal money or other benefit. It is time for another revolution to re-establish the proper role between the federal government, the state governments and the citizens of the several states.

As I write this there have been 129 comments and not one has attempted to defend Ms. Marcus' argument. Except for a few that have gotten off track, all have been highly critical. Only one seems to support her, but the argument is so disjointed it makes no sense. You would think there would be at least one Leftie that would defend her. People are wide awake. If the Democrats press to passage in the face of this overwhelming opposition they will likely suffer historic losses in future elections. The last time a government engaged this arrogantly towards its citizens on this continent we declared our Independence and earned it by force of arms.

BTW, Leary was, in fact, Timothy Leary. A bit ironic.

BillEastland Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> K in St. Petersberg has a great analysis.
>
> I would add, and you lawyers should check this
> out, a case that I think is a trump card: LEARY v.
> UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969). Leary
> successfully asserted his constitutional right
> against criminal self-incrimination because the
> act of paying the tax would be an admission of a
> crime. Since refusal to pay the individual
> mandate is made a crime by the proposal Marcus
> discusses, admission on one's tax return that he
> has not purchased a 'qualified' insurance policy
> can lead to prosecution if the individual is
> unable to pay the 'penalty', therefore I think the
> mechanism of using the tax code to mandate the
> purchase of health insurance violates the 5th
> Amendment, as long as criminal sanctions apply.
>
> Additionally, where is the constitutional
> authority for the federal government to levy a
> penalty for failure purchase a good or service?
> Under the proposal no tax is imposed, only a
> penalty upon failure to comply by purchasing a
> qualified plan. I think Marcus's argument that
> the taxing authority can be used for this purpose
> in this instance falls short because a penalty is
> not a tax. What do you lawyers think?
>
> What is good about this whole debate is it brings
> to the forefront a public discussion of the proper
> role of government, or more specifically, what
> should be the limits of government. It is clear
> that Supreme Court decisions like Wickard have
> taken us far beyond the Founder's concept of those
> limits. The most important result of the Tea
> Party and 9/12 Movement would be the passage of
> one or more constitutional amendments that
> overturn the last 70 years of Commerce Clause
> jurisprudence and goes two steps further by ending
> the authority of the federal government to
> regulate individual behavior through the tax code
> (i.e., end social engineering) and requiring
> states to pass laws on threat of the loss of
> federal money or other benefit. It is time for
> another revolution to re-establish the proper role
> between the federal government, the state
> governments and the citizens of the several
> states.
>
> As I write this there have been 129 comments and
> not one has attempted to defend Ms. Marcus'
> argument. Except for a few that have gotten off
> track, all have been highly critical. Only one
> seems to support her, but the argument is so
> disjointed it makes no sense. You would think
> there would be at least one Leftie that would
> defend her. People are wide awake. If the
> Democrats press to passage in the face of this
> overwhelming opposition they will likely suffer
> historic losses in future elections. The last
> time a government engaged this arrogantly towards
> its citizens on this continent we declared our
> Independence and earned it by force of arms.
>
> BTW, Leary was, in fact, Timothy Leary. A bit
> ironic.


Bill:

Nice comments. I agree with your last point. I think that all branches of the government are underestimating the anger of the people at this point. My sense is the same as yours. This will either be corrected at the ballot box in the very near future or, if they have gerrymandered that process so bad as to make that not doable, I fear a repeat of 1776 is in the making. See my comments posted at 1:03 PM.

Said the pot to the kettle, my you are very black...
If you can't get through the opening paragraph to the gist of the article maybe you understand why so few liberal bother posting on RCP any more.
Every other post here dennounces Obama as a socialist, fascist or communist ...
not to mention silly, uninformed, traitorous, etc.

Enough Already Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DrFunguy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If any of you are open-minded enought to be
> > interested in arguments supporting the authors
> > contention, you might want to look at this nice
> > summary.
> >
> >
> [www.fivethirtyeight.com]
>
> > nal-chicanery.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> I consider myself open-minded and followed your
> link.
>
> Imagine my surprise when I read this in the
> opening paragraph: "Granting that tea partiers
> and people who send me silly emails should not
> necessarily be taken seriously as constitutional
> experts, there nonetheless seems to be an
> unusually high level of either uninformed or
> knowing manipulation of the Constitution in
> service to pre-ordained agendas."
>
> I was expecting arguments to support a position,
> not more-of-the-same put downs of the other side's
> concerns and/or arguments as "silly" "uninformed',
> etc. I've heard enough of that talk from Obama,
> Pelosi, Reid, et al.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain

Pensive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always find it amusing when people fall back
> onto that "safe" argument of what the framers
> "intended" in the original unaltered
> Constitution.
>
> I guess, following that logic, we should repeal
> the following Amendments since the framers did not
> intend for them to be part of the Constitution in
> the first place:
>
> Thirteenth Amendment (passed 1865, almost 80 years
> since the ratification of the Constitution)
> abolishing slavery
>
> Fourteenth Amendment (passed 1868, 80 years since
> the ratification of the Constitution)
> prohibiting states from abridging citizens'
> privileges or immunities and rights to due process
> and the equal protection of the law;
>
> Fifteenth Amendment (passed 1870)
> Prohibiting the federal government and the states
> from using a citizen's race, color, or previous
> status as a slave as a qualification for voting
>
> Seventeenth Amendment (passed 1913) - Establishing
> direct election of senators.
>
> Nineteenth Amendment (passed 1920) - Prohibiting
> the federal government and the states from
> forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.
>
> Twenty-second Amendment (passed 1951) - limiting
> the President to two terms in office.
>
> Twenty-seventh Amendment (passed 1992, 200 years
> after the ratification of the Constitution)
> Limiting Congressional pay raises.
>
> Since the Framers never intended any of these
> amendments to be part of the Constitution, we
> should repeal them immediately.

Wow!

You obviously have no legal training. Article V of the Constitution sets out procedures for amending the Constitution. You might be surprised to learn that the Framers wrote that. So, they absolutely intended that the people could amend the Constitution.
What Article V does not say is that the Constitution could be amended by judicial fiat.

I hope that the absurdity of your point has already struck you, before my posting of this comment.

DrFunguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If any of you are open-minded enought to be
> interested in arguments supporting the authors
> contention, you might want to look at this nice
> summary.
>
> [www.fivethirtyeight.com]
> nal-chicanery.html


You cannot support something that is patently false with any kind of argument. If something is not true it is simply not true. Outside of outright socialism and statism the government cannot force you to work, or buy anything you dont want to work or buy.

The government trying to do so is why the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms.

I don't understand how the commerce clause is even supposed to apply here. It says "commerce among the states." Right?

How does the state have anything to do with me buying health insurance? The only commerce taking place is among me and my insurance company.

Am I wrong?

The Supreme Court has already begun to roll back the overreaching of the commerce clause gimmick. There was a Federal Law banning guns in schools because interfering with any education would hurt the country. The court told them to go back to square 1 - this was too big a stretch and it was unconstitutional.

if Obama could appoint 9 justices it might have a chance but it looks as if he'll only have a chance to replace liberals like Stevens and Ginsberg, If the midterms go right maybe the republicams will even be able to thwart him there!

It amazes me just how easily people in this country are willing to let the government run your life. All in the name of morality the same morality that they attack christians for preaching. It amazes me when you say killing babaies is wrong the left goes nuts, however when we talk about healthcare it becomes if you are not for another GOVERNMENT WELAFER PROGRAM well then you are immoral. Even though we are talking about people who should be making an effort to take care of themselves we instead will have the hard working people in this nation take care of you. This is what is considered now to be moral. Which thier argument is stupid is if they took away a womans right to choose they would go crazy however remove thier right to choose healthcare and that is OK. Incredible which makes most people wonder what really drives the left. POWER that is all, they dont care that better than half the nation do not want changes in healthcare they are going to do it because that is what is good for us peasents. Does is not strike anyone on the left that not one congressman will be on the Government insurance. No they will keep their own great healthcare plan while the rest of us are left to ration. A quick thanks to all of you socialist that voted for this intellectual idiot. The Havard News must be one useless rag if this moran ran it. The USA is starting to wake up finally and real changes are coming. Thank you to all of the Teaparties and Conservatives spreading the truth. We must all stick together to remove these libs from oiffice.
In my opinion if you are someone who recieves assistance from the governemnt you should have to stand in line behind us tax payers. Yeah I said it, we are better than you for sure in that we work to make ourselves better. If you are liberal and want others to have health coverage move them inot your house and stay out of mine.

Sen. Schumer has gone on record stating that "we're not going to not pass health care."
At least not anytime soon.

:-o

Her argument could apply to virtually anything. GM and Chrysler collapsed. They are a huge part of the economy. Could government force us to buy cars? Housing has collapsed, causing the current financial crisis. Could government force us to buy houses. Under Ruth Marcus's reasoning, it could.

Apparently the Commerce Clause gave the federal government license to inject itself into every economic aspect of our lives, not just economic transactions we choose to make, but also transactions we choose not to make.

Thank you for so brilliantly pointing out how incomprehensibly naive the supreme court has been in respects to its trashing of our constitution since the days of FDR.

Interstate transit? you may want to research why this clause was instituted in the first place, as it doesn't support your argument in the least.

And secondly there has NEVER been a mandate stating if you do not comply with something that effects your body, you can be taxed. Wheat and Blood are two very different institutes.

Chromehawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DarthSidious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unfortunately, the tax is constitutional even
> if
> > the mandate isn't. Nothing can stop Congress
> from
> > imposing a 2.5% income surtax, and allowing a
> > deduction/rebate for those who have
> "acceptable"
> > health insurance. Constitutional problems only
> > arise if Congress tries to punish the lack of
> > health insurance directly, outside the tax
> system.
> > If they prosecuted you for lack of insurance,
> even
> > though you paid the tax, there might be valid
> > constitutional argumants.
>
>
> Uhm ... so they could set up a tax that says if
> you do not include your tickets to vote ... you
> have to pay an "extra" tax. And if you do vote
> you can also be required to pay a tax ... just a
> little less.
>
> Poll taxes ... you can NOT Tax a RIGHT. Only a
> privilege.
> So for the Mandate tax to be Constitutional, they
> would have to define Health care as a priviledge
> ... not a right.
> A privilege you are FORCED to exercise .... well
> because you choose to breath. And of course
> continuing to breathe can be a privelege too.
> Well except for that Life, liberty, and pursuit of
> happiness crap.


Very nice "Point" & "Counter Point" there.

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.
Voltaire.

the real theme of marcus's article is that the constitution is meaningless, because in order to exercise power, one passes any law one wants and then gets the supreme court to find some language in the constitution that on a stretch could support the law and presto, EVERYTHING'S constitutional. here's another example of such thinking: the 1960s civil rights laws, which were also justified on "the commerce clause." imagine that, humans are only entitled to full civil rights because of congress's right to regulate commerce. an honest law, and a truly liberal law, would have been based on liberty. the declaration of independence said all men are created equal, lincoln's great war dedicated us to the same proposition, and the post-civil war amendments to the constitution, when strictly interpreted REQUIRE full civil rights. nevertheless, legal yoyos said, "i know--we'll use the commerce clause!"

marcus notes that: "The clause empowers Congress 'to regulate commerce ... among the several states,' which may not sound terribly sweeping. But since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has interpreted this authority to cover local activities with national implications." but, just look at her underlying premise--which is that congress's power to REGULATE the commerce in which one might choose to engage is equal to the government's right to FORCE one to engage in the commerce. but if congress has the right to force one into commerce, it has the right to run everything, which means dictatorship. there is no principled mid-point once the government's force is the beginning and end of commercial activity.

marcus tries to preempt the preceding by arguing as follows:

"Granted, there is a difference between regulating an activity that an individual chooses to engage in and requiring an individual to purchase a good or service. Granted, too, there is a difference between making automobile insurance compulsory, as a condition of the privilege to drive a car, and making health insurance compulsory, whether an individual wants it or not.

But the individual mandate is central to the larger effort to reform the insurance market. Congress may not be empowered to order everyone to go shopping to boost the economy. Yet health insurance is so central to health care, and the individual mandate so entwined with the effort to reform the system, that this seems like a different, perhaps unique, case."

well, "uniqueness" and "emergency" are always the excuses of the tyrant. mussolini just had to have all that power to make the trains run on time. hitler just had to gain total power to curb unique inflation and the unusual circumstances of what his deluded mind construed as a stab in the back that lost germany world war1. franco pleaded that he needed absolute power to save his country from the unique circumstances of communists wanting to undermine spanish institutions ages old. caeser ended the republic to save it. where does it say in our constitution that its provisions may be overturned because the economy reaches a bump in the road. and say what one will about health care and the big dollars involved, its present state is not causing nationwide famine, civil war, or other catastrophe. at worst, it is an imperfect market system (to which government contributes its portion of the imperfection) that does not qualify as any sort of emergency.

marcus gets back to the same theme, further arguing that: "Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin likens this to Congress raising money for environmental programs by taxing polluters. 'Congress is entitled to raise revenues from persons whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs,' he concludes."

well, no, that analogy fails, too. the polluters voluntarily engaged in commerce and DID SOMETHING. what congress wants now, and marcus wants to justify, is that people have to buy what barack wants because they exist, not because they have engaged in voluntary commerce.

but the dollars ARE the reason that some politicians are chasing the "reform." illinois politicians have for some decades now grown accustomed to controlling ever bigger pots of money so that they can hand out the political jobs to their friends, then get on the government/mega-business merry go round and rake in all the cash. we've had governor after governor go to federal prison, and another seems likely to follow. these people want their biggest haul ever--17% of ALL THE MONEY THAT'S OUT THERE! once they get that stake, they have nowhere to go but to grab more. they will find more emergencies (after all, with only 83% of the former economy left once they control health care, the percentage of all the remaining portions of the private economy will go up, which will justify their takeover as "too big to fail" or in order to stave off "unique" circumstances").

the people have to stand up on this. when the politicians say buy, the people must refuse unless they like the product and would buy it anyway. let the politicians try to lock the refuseniks up--they might be surprised at the civil unrest that will follow.

keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

SamAdams1776 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anti-Fascist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your interpretation of the Interstate Commerce
> > clause would allow your faction to seize
> control
> > of every aspect of the economy, which I believe
> > Marxist call seizing control of the means of
> > production.
> >
> > Which is of course your game, and game it is,
> and
> > the games nearly up on all fronts.
> >
> > Look up Fascist or Totalitarian in the
> dictionary,
> > Ruth. Or you could just look in the mirror.
>
>
>
> In a decision that gutted 150 years of
> jurisprudence and swept away private property
> rights and decentralized government, the Wickard
> v. Filburn decision Ruth cites could very well be
> the last nails on the coffin of our liberty,
> except that many of us will NOT buy the insurance
> , nor pay the fine and if they come to GET us, we
> WILL kill (courtesy of the Second Amendment) and
> government agent sent to arrest us. I will first
> of course have to resign my commission to shed
> myself of the insurance--after which I will turn
> my firearms against any agent of tyranny.
>
> No Fort Sumters--but neither will I budge and if
> they come with guns, they better be prepared for a
> fight.


Sam: I am afraid that it is going to come to that, long before the healthcare mess becomes a menace. I won't bother resigning mine; my oath is pretty clear on what it is I must support and defend. "We the people, in order to..." Hmmmm. That tells me enough at that point to figure out the rest. As for the orders of the president; nuremberg defense fodder. Though I may slip a little obediance in for a libtard or two:-))

Largely, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on the 14th Amendment powers granted congress.

No one disputed that. That's why there was no serious constitutional challenge to the law once it was passed.

The argument of the state's rights faction was that it was within the discretion of congress whether the law should be passed. They thought it should not be. They were joined in this sentiment by Sen. Barry Goldwater, who said he agreed with the goals of the civil rights act, but thought the issue ought to be left to the states.

If it had been, there would have been years of disorder, and many people would have died. Lyndon Johnson solved the white South's biggest political problem for them. I would be surprised if half of the senators who filibustered against the act really were opposed to it. They might have preferred a weaker bill in some cases, but I do not think most of them had the categorical opposition they professed to have in the debate.

keevan d. morgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the real theme of marcus's article is that the
> constitution is meaningless, because in order to
> exercise power, one passes any law one wants and
> then gets the supreme court to find some language
> in the constitution that on a stretch could
> support the law and presto, EVERYTHING'S
> constitutional. here's another example of such
> thinking: the 1960s civil rights laws, which were
> also justified on "the commerce clause.".

>
> keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

Marcus's arguments were answered by this posting,
[www.lewrockwell.com]

How absurd. We could mandate that every American has to purchase derivatives to spread the risk pool of the mortgage market to by this bit of "logic".

The stupidity of this is that we are giving up our individual liberty to maintain a system that is fundementally flawed and will just fail all over again.

The bottom line is that no matter how you try to manipulate the system to create externalities like "equitiable distribution" all you can do is redistribute inequity.

What we really need to do is recognize that supply of health care services is not a fixed quantity but rather can be grown and its only by growing it, innovating and creating productivity (rather than rationing) that we will ever approach meeting our total health care needs.

But thats hard, it takes investment and work. Its much easier to lie to people. Its easier to take their freedom in exchange for the illusion of security and fairness.

Yeah actually they have almost no comparative value. First off owning a car isn't mandatory. Neither is driving it if you do own it. Second, liability auto insurance covers damage CAUSED by the owner of the insurance to the property of other people that the owner of the insurance is liable for. Whereas, health insurance covers expenses that the owner of the insurance chooses to incur. Moreover, we already have an obligatory payment system under contracting law in that if one chooses to use health care services then the user is obligated to pay for those services. The proposed mandatory insurance system is primarily focused on people who opt not to have the insurance because they are young and healthy and are willing to accept the risk (which is minimal) so they don't have to incur a cost they see as unnecessary FOR THE PURPOSE of reducing the cost of insurance for the rest of the insured population.

Making ownership of liability insurance a condition of engaging in the privlege of driving a car really has nothing to do with the gov't using cohersion to force people into a system to reduce its cost.


ihealth 360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The health insurance mandate was somehow
> un-Constitutional. Most states, 48 of them, have
> long required individuals to buy auto liability
> insurance. Admittedly, the legal issues of a state
> mandate are not precisely the same.

I am going to echo mzarowitz , a previous post and say I am also no Constitutional Scholar. However, in looking through Ms. Marcus' article, I think most conservative thinking people would start to key in on a few words and phrases that would indicate where Ms. Marcus gets her ideas from.
The start for me was her sentence: "But since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has interpreted this authority to cover local activities with national implications." This tells me volumes. If I remember history correctly, it has been since this period that the Supreme court has been on it's latest liberal slide. Maybe Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't have to try to pack the Supreme court so hard in his time in order to ram his policies through Congress. It seems to have gotten where he wanted all by itself.
Then there's the reference to Laurence Tribe. If ever there was a liberal icon of constitutional law, it is this man. If anyone can stray from the founder's intent and make it look perfectly legal, it is this man.
The quote by Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin regarding Congress' "entitlement" remedy "social problems" through "new government programs".
Somebody please tell me: Is there any place in the Constitution that entitles C0ngress to "Remedy Social Problems" via "new government programs" ? Well, I could go on, but I just wanted to add my two cents worth to the legions of people above who are more learned and articulate than me. I hope Ms. Marcus reads all this. Better yet, I hope her bosses will also. Hopefully they will take stock in how isolated their thinking is from most mainstream Americans.
Ms. Marcus? In the Navy, we used to call her type "Sea Lawyers".

Of all the... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The mandate is:
>
> 1) intergenerational wealth transfer, plain and
> simple. If the mandate merely required people to
> purchase a health plan with appropriate actuarial
> contingencies for their odds of needing health
> care, it might not be so offensive.

The problem is, you wouldn't pay until you needed it. Then there would be no money in the system. You would need the benefit at a time when your income had vanished. You would have to liquidate your assets to pay for your health care. When your assets were gone, or if you had no assets in the first place, then you would be back to having someone else pay for it.

>
> Imagine if insurers were forced to issue life
> insurance policies to every cancer-ridden
> 80-year-old who asks -- and charge no more than
> twice the premium that a healthy 22-year-old pays.

Not exactly the same situation. But if you intended for everyone to have a life insurance policy, you would have to make everyone start paying at an early age. Or the premium would be impossible, as you point out. The only way to make everyone pay is with a tax. T-A-X.

I don't support the Pelosi-Reid plan, but I do know one thing. The alternative to having is system of universal health care is to not have universal health care.

The rest of what your are saying, I agree with. Applying the commerce clause to the situation of the individual need for health care is outside of its scope. The commerce clause and other powers give congress the perogative to regulate some aspects of the health care system and the insurance system. But the individual to that degree? I don't think so.
>
> 2) constitutionally suspect. True, the "Commerce
> Clause" has been stretched to justify federal
> overreach into nearly every corner of human
> interaction in America, and the power to tax has
> seen some novel applications ... but neither of
> these is a slam-dunk defense.
>
> To quote Nancy Pelosi, "Are you kidding me?" The
> mandate is not constitutional in a strict reading,
> and that suggests at least that Congress is
> overreaching again and could face challenges
> should a bill pass. I'm not convinced that one
> will, but we'll see. The Democrats are takin no
> prisoners, and the country be @#$%&.
>
> To quote me, Ruth Marcus is a lightweight
> intellect and a robot of the left, so it doesn't
> do to get too wrapped up in her tripe.

keevan morgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The Commerce Clause was
> not put into the Constitution as a civil rights
> guarantee. It is not only dishonest to turn it
> into that, but relegating civil rights issues to
> the level of interstate commerce is demeaning.

I do recall some discussion of this issue. I do agree with you on the commerce clause. The power of congress to pass civil rights legislation clearly comes from the 14th Amendment, not from the commerce clause.

Wow. I tend to be a strict constructionist but and avoid gross re-interpreting. But does anyone 9except this author) really believe the founding fathers meant to include healthcare in "commerce'? I just don't think so. Healthcare wasn't a 'business" then; it was something supplied by a few well-intended guys in every community. And they probably weren't paid too much and NObody had health insurance!