Yesterday Virginia federal judge ruled that Obamacare's provision to require, by law, that everyone purchase insurance by 2014 is unconstitutional. The reason given by the Virginia judge was that Congress cannot regulate "an individual's failure to purchase health insurance under the pretense that it is an economic activity that affects interstate commerce". The argument being pushed by Sebelius and Holder is that, "as two federal courts have already held, this unfair cost-shifting harms the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions have made clear that the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with such harmful economic effects, which is what the law does – it regulates how we pay for health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't continue to pay for those who don't."
It's called insurance people. The notion of insurance is simple; one pays for the potential use against needing to use it while another takes on the risk of paying if the use is acted upon. We, as a free society, shall never be dictated to by any form of government to what we have to purchase in order to part of the free society known as the United States of America. Some have pointed to car insurance as a similar instance where one is obligated to purchase a product to drive a car but what they fail to recognize is that one does not need a car to be a citizen of the United States. The Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause have been abused by the Federal Government and here is just another liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If the Supreme Court hears this case, or a similar one, and rules that mandating health insurance as a right of citizenship then what is next? Where does it stop?
Perhaps these words will fall on deaf ears because the American Spirit was waned in recent decades. Apathy is the order of the day instead of entrepreneurial spirit. The masses have been trained and enslaved by the federal government with the passing of entitlement programs and bailouts. The health care mandate is a blatant attempt to pave the way for more central planning in all aspects of our lives. Wake up now before it is too late and you are herded into ghettos.
Wow...Viper, you haven't had too many responses on your posts recently. Now I see why.
ReplyDeleteWe could just as easily go to the Foxnews blog and respond to the same thing: The brainless attempt to divide and scare people who try and turn facts from opinions. I could easily debate you on this subject, there are reasonable and differing opinions available. But when your arguments are pure symbolism without even a shred of factual information, it gets kind of difficult...sorry.
"The health care mandate is a blatant attempt to pave the way for more central planning in all aspects of our lives. Wake up now before it is too late and you are herded into ghettos."
Again...wow. Talk about hyperbole.
Anonymous - I don't see where Viper is not being devoid of facts. The quote is accurate, the judge did say that mandating the purchase of insurance based on citizenship was a misuse of the Commerce Clause. Granted Viper does got a bit overboard on the hyperbole. So, please, for the rest of us, provide the factual information that you claim Viper is missing here.
ReplyDeleteYou don't see where Viper is devoid of facts? Sure, he quoted the judge. That is accurate. I'm sorry for that misinterpretation. But where are the facts that show how this is destroying entrepreneurial spirit? I just don't get it. Please, enlighten me. My whole rant is based on the point that this is a symbolic argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of "we're America and we just don't do this...". Really, ask yourself, what is the point?
Our society has become increasingly apathetic and the ruling class has exploited that. Sure what Viper said is symbolic but so is a lot of rhetoric coming out of Washington. It is a starting point to the discussion. We do need to hold our government more accountable and not allow the ruling class to push their agenda. So let's discuss the mandate in light of recent events instead of getting bogged down in What hyperbole is being used.
ReplyDeleteHow about us holding corporate America more accountable as well?
ReplyDeleteLet's stay on point as we could really go off course with corporations. It will be interesting to see if the vase reaches the supreme court and how it is interpreted.
ReplyDeleteSo none of you will answer the question? Where will it stop? If start mandating insurance then what next?
ReplyDeleteI guess it stops with Obama revealing himself as the Anti-Christ and the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteYou're such a Glenn Beck wannabe.
Pathetic
Viper's A Moron, Seriously, you don't see a violation of the Commerce Clause with the mandating of insurance of all Americans? You don't see fines and/or imprisonment for not complying with the mandate an infringement upon our freedoms and liberties in America?
ReplyDeleteBut if you want to hold a conversation in the mud then so be it, I will not stoop your level of mudslinging and smear tactics. I simply ask the question: If it is okay for the Federal Government to mandate that,as part of citizenship, all Americans carry life insurance or face fines/imprisonment then what is next?
No, just like Judge Moon and Judge Steeh, I don't see a violation of the Commerce Clause in the new health care law.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the threat of fines and imprisonment, those are, as I understand them, the possible penalties for not paying the tax that would be levied if you fail to purchase insurance. That really is nothing new. The IRS has fined and/ or imprisoned plenty of people for failing to pay taxes.
And as to your "what is next" fear mongering, no one knows. Not even you. But one thing is certain, your dire predictions of enslavement, central planning and ghettos are not a possibility. You are simply trying to stoke the fear of the unknown through doomsday scenarios that would never come to pass.
Here's what I wonder: have you avoided this apathy, this enslavement, this government that is intnent on central planning and the creation of and subsequent herding into ghettos?
I suppose that you're too smart to fall into all these traps and that you're looking out for the lesser of your brethren and trying to save them either from themselves or this evil thing you call Government.
Obamacare was passed as a tax bill. In that provision, every America must check the box that they have insurance coverage. If anyone fails to do so they will be fined and/or imprisoned. Now, if they check the box and it comes out that they don't then it will be treated like any other audit violation. It has nothing to do with "not paying the tax" as there is not tax being applied.
ReplyDeleteYou asked "have you avoided this apathy, this enslavement, this government that is intnent on central planning and the creation of and subsequent herding into ghettos?"
The simple answer is yes I have. I am involved in my community and will be representing the citizens of Hamburg next year as a council member. I vote every election even special elections. I attend council meetings - even post the agenda before hand and the minutes afterwards on this very blog site.
I routinely email, call, and write my local, state, and federal elected officials including the President of the United States. I don't sit idly by and allow the ruling class to add pork to bills, pass laws that restrict our freedoms or increase the power of the federal government. I make my voice heard - here, in the paper and to the elected officials directly. I encourage other Americans to do the same - I don't even care if you agree or disagree with me; I just want everyone to voice thier opinion.
Here is a case in point of central planning. Roads and I am not talking about interstate highways; rather I am talking about the state highways. The federal government taxes our gasoline at a rate higher than the profit margin at the pump. Our State highway coffers get more money from the Federal government than anywhere else. With that extra money comes strings. The federal highway dollars are tied to many elements and one is the lowering of the BAL to .08 and the legal drinking age at 21.
Look at any society that has a strong central government and one will be hard pressed not to find a sector of their society forced into ghettos. We need less government but we still need government. Our States need to wrestle back their lost Rights granted them by the Constitution and eroded by liberal interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
What have you done Viper's a Moron?
Actually Viper, I misspoke earlier. Now I don't know if you understand this, but I'm trying to be factual and accurate. It seems to be a foreign concept to you, but hopefully you'll understand this.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Chapter 48, Section 5000A, Sub-Section (g)(2)(A): "in the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
Any comments on that?
Regarding your civic activities: BRAVO!!! What have I done? I vote. Yep, that's it. Vote. No more. No less. And I've survived. I have a family, a roof over my head and a job. I don't consider myself apathetic, enslaved, a subject of a centrally planned economy or on the verge of being herded into a ghetto. Those are things that just will not happen. Why? It's not because of people like you who live in a world filled with fear and dread. It's because there are people of reason and logic in this country who thankfully outnumber the crazies like you.
And your example of central planning isn't that at all. The states don't have to take the money; they choose to do so.
Viper's A Moron - Let's bring the entire code out and look at it. I will post it on another entry to keep a common thread.
ReplyDeleteI never stated that you are apathetic but the vast majority of Americans are. They want their entitlements, their handouts and don't care if government infringes on freedom to do so.
As for Ghetto's - they may not conjure up the image of Ghetto's to everyone but America has done it the past - Internment camps for the Japan-Americans during WWII and the constant Reservation system established for the Native Americans. It has happened and can happen again.
"The vast majority of Americans are" apathetic. Really? But I thought we were a nation of entrepreneurs, of can doers, of self starters? I guess not.
ReplyDeleteInteresting examples of ghettos. What's your point? Sure, it happened in the past. Has it happened since then? One other key difference is that you are insinuating that everyone will be herded into ghettos as a result of this government that is bent on centrally planning ever aspect of our lives.
Oh, one other thing. The text that you posted in another entry was actually one part of Sub-Title F of the Health Care Law and represented that portion of the law that will be inserted into the Internal Revenue Code.
ReplyDeleteWhat am I missing? As you can see their is a fine if you don't have insurance for every month of the year.
ReplyDeleteWe still have reservations by the way. So it still goes on. I am not saying everyone will be herded because it will depend on what regime is in power.
There are fines but no imprisonment like you claimed above. What did you think it was going to be? An honor system? "You better have insurance or else!"
ReplyDelete"We still have reservations by the way." Yes, we do. Last I checked, the people that lived on those reservations were free to leave too. What is the "it" you refer to still going on?
You really are just a nutcase. I mean honestly. I don't know how you say some of the things you do with conviction.
Viper's a Moron
ReplyDeleteThe legislation passed called for fines and/or imprisonment if an American citizen did not have health insurance coverage. Now, it appears that the IRS has not instituted all of the legislation.
Plus, as Viper points out, if one claims to have insurance and does not that is a violation in filing and that can result in prison time; just ask Wesley Snipes. I noticed you backed off your citation and did not admit your citation was incorrect. In the famous words of Nancy Pelosi, "We won't know what is in the bill until we pass it."
Yes, American Indians can leave the reservation but many cannot because of means to do so.
Anon and Viper, if the legislation that passed called for fines and/or IMPRISONMENT, then cite the statutory language. All I could find was the language above. I'm not backing off my citation because it's not incorrect. I never claimed that there would be no fines. My claim was that there would not be imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteBut really, so what if there is? Should there be no penalties for violating the law? I guess I don't get your angle. Would you be okay with the law if it only called for fines?
And again with the reservations thing. Not being able to leave because you have no car or don't have enough money for a bus ticket is not quite the same as people being herded into ghettos. I mean really.
The original bill passed called for fines and/or imprisonment. I posted the bill that passed on a previous blog and we had discussed it prior as well. Now, I am pleased to see that the IRS has taken out the provision of imprisonment from the aspect of not having health insurance. That does not change the fact that our Federal Government does not have the right to require any citizen to purchase anything for being a citizen.
ReplyDeleteThe Commerce Clause is being stretched beyond belief and abused by a liberal agenda to restrict our freedoms from being able to chose to self-insure ourselves. The mandate of any product by any level of government just to be a citizen violates the fabric of the our Constitution.
I have known many Native Americans throughout my life time. While attending college, I was among a handful of non-Indians taking courses that discussed the plight of the Native American community both in the US and in Canada. It is not as easy as one may think for them to leave the reservation.
Let's be clear. You, along with many others, believe that the new health care law is unconstitutional. Your belief in that does not make it so. Just like my belief in it's constitutionality does not guarantee it's ability to withstand all legal challenges. But for the time being, it is the law of the land.
ReplyDeleteAgain, these are your opinions and beliefs. They are not facts. Until the Supreme Court rules on this issue or any other part of the law, your opinion and beliefs about the law will remain just that.
Just because it's difficult for someone to leave a place does not mean that they cannot leave that place. But please, do explain this eventual herding of masses into ghettos. I'd love to hear this tale. Or are you saving that for your first city council meeting?
Viper's A Moron - What argument do you make for a health care mandate being Constitutional?
ReplyDeleteViper - He/She cannot make one because their is not one. The use of the Commerce Clause is a weak argument at best. It's unfortunate that lawmakers pass such a law and rely on our Court system to check them. I understand that we have checks and balances set up but these educated elected officials should know better.
ReplyDeleteOh you're so wrong Anonymous. Sorry, but commenting on this blog isn't priority # 1 for me; especially with Christmas two days away.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing, it's not up to the U.S. to "prove" the Constitutionality of any one law. Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Knowingly and willingly passing legislation that violates the Constitution would go against that oath and their duty. The basic Constitutional philosophy at work here is that until shown otherwise, there is a presumption of constitutionality.
I'll write more at some point in the future, but for now, think about this:
1) What does it mean to regulate commerce among the States?
2) How does calling one person's argument weak constitute an argument at all?
Read a little case law before you respond.
Viper's A Moron
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that Congress takes an oath to which they violated by enacting a health care mandate. Commerce Clause has never been used or interpreted by SCOTUS to allow the Federal, or any level of government, government to place upon a citizen such a mandate. By passing such a law brings us one step closer to a dictatorship.
Plus, the states are left to set up exchanges per the law enacted and there is no interstate commerce going on which is what the Commerce Clause is said to regulate.
Really? We're headed to wards dictatorship huh?
ReplyDeleteThen they must've suspended habeus corpus, right? No?
Then they must've made stripped congress of it's powers to check the executive branch right? No?
Did they make Obama king as part of a despotic coup? No?
Then could it be that you are resorting to demagogic rhetoric in a vain attempt to scare everyone into listening to your argument because without that demagoguery you and everyone else know that your argument would fall on it's face?
Me, I think I'll go with that last one, because people like you have been spouting off this "sky is falling" bull since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. And we seem to have lasted 225 years quite nicely in spite of people like you, not because of them.
Truman - Some may say we are pretty close to that already. Not saying that we have crowned a King or Queen but we have established a Ruling Class of Senators and House of Representatives. Do you really think the Supreme Court will apply the Commerce Clause accurately?
ReplyDeleteHabeus Corpus has been suspended before and what prevents from it to from happening again? It's not a sky is falling thought with the Central Planning that has slowly eroded State Rights and the rights of each citizen.
"Do you really think the Supreme Court will apply the Commerce Clause accurately?"
ReplyDeleteDefine accurately? Do I think they'll necessarily apply it in a way that you agree with? Absolutely not. Do I think they'll apply constitutional law to it in order to make the best judgment they can about its application in legislation? ABSOLUTELY!
The first flaw with your argument is that for the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the commerce clause application, they need to take a relatively liberal (i.e. progressive) interpretation of the constitution. Given that the current SCOTUS majority is made up of originalists, (i.e. conservative) the likelihood that they'd rule on something as being constitutional when it's progressive in its application would be unlikely. Although Kennedy could swing more liberal on this and sway the court in a 5:4 decision. Either way, the constitution is in support of their decision, it just in how they interpret the constitution that colors their decision.
So how exactly can they rule inaccurately?
Second, the "ruling class" as you call them, are elected officials. If you don't like the status quo, join a party and actively participate in the selection process. Maybe even run for office yourself if you think you are qualified. But don't sit here pointing at the sky crying that the clouds are out to get you when you aren't doing anything to change what you see as problems.
As to habeas corpus, it has only been suspended twice in the US history that I know of. Once by Lincoln through the application of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the constitution which states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." The second case I could fine was far more specific, in 2006 when GWB signed a law authorizing the suspension of Habeas corpus for persons deemed to be "enemy combatants" in the war on terror. The second case is questionable although one could argue that the enemy combatants are not protected in the first place since they aren't citizens. The first dealing with Lincoln is authorized by the constitution and completely legal.
The argument here is Hamilton vs. Jefferson, and has been going on since the days of the first colonial congress when the new nation was being planned. It's nothing new. So to say that somehow they sky is falling now when it hasn't fallen in 225 years is more a statement about you than it is about this country.
This attitude is why I consider the Tea Party to be an anti-patriotic association. They claim to stand for the constitution and the USA, but then deride every aspect of this nation that makes us great, pointing to weakness, failure and inadequacy instead of finding the positive in the nation and building upon it.
In essence, they're whiners making a lot of noise but offering nothing of constructive value to this nation. Which is more than evidenced by their lack of a platform or ideas for how to fix things. All they have are complaints. Which is why they will go the way of the dodo in time.
Truman
ReplyDeleteYes, thankfully the bench is comprised of enough justices that lean more conservative when interpreting the Constitution. If the Court does hear the case and any elected official that voted yes or signed the bill were still in office would that be grounds for dismissal since they did not uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution by passing a law that violated it?
"If the Court does hear the case and any elected official that voted yes or signed the bill were still in office would that be grounds for dismissal since they did not uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution by passing a law that violated it?"
ReplyDeleteHuh?
You seem to have an odd grasp for what upholding that oath entails.
Laws passed by congress get overturned/amended by SCOTUS all the time. That does not mean the people who wrote the law were flying in the face of the constitution.
If the SCOTUS ruled 5:4, does that mean that the 4 who dissented should also be removed from the court too? Because by your logic, they are violating the constitution and their oath as well.
No, your interpretation and application of constitutional law as well as the interplay between SCOTUS and Congress seems flawed. Any overturning or amending of the Healthcare law will merely be a rebuke to the congresses interpretation, not an affirmation of their breach of their oath of office.
Curiously, you seem to abide by originalist constitutional interpretation when it suits you but you have then argued for progressive positions as well.
I'm still curious, which position do you hold? Progressive or originalist because your arguments lead me to believe you aren't clear which you support.