Not to mention that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
Posted on 06/14/2011 9:40:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.
Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, government lawyers have yet to address the law's most basic constitutional infirmity. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to interstate commerce or some other federal legislative authority—can support the law's centerpiece, the "individual mandate" that all Americans purchase health insurance. The Constitution denies that power to the federal government, reserving it to the states alone.
In enacting the individual mandate, Congress purported to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce and, in the process, reach individuals who are already engaged in that commerce. But the individual mandate does not regulate commerce, interstate or otherwise. It simply decrees that all Americans, unless specially exempted, must have a congressionally prescribed level of health-insurance coverage regardless of any economic activity in which they may be engaged. Requiring individuals to act simply because they exist is the defining aspect of the general police power that Congress lacks.
The government's lawyers, recognizing this fundamental constitutional reality, have tried to rewrite the law so that it can withstand judicial scrutiny. They have claimed that the individual mandate is a tax, despite common sense, judicial precedent, and numerous statements to the contrary by the law's sponsors and President Obama. They have also argued that ObamaCare does not actually impose a mandate on inactive citizens, but rather regulates how individuals will pay for their health care.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Latest argument:
“Ve don need no steenkin’ constitushun!”
Great article. Too bad half of Congress is too dumb to understand it.
This is the same argument used by FDR to justify the constitutionality of Social Security.
Corollary to your tagline: Mexicans Reconquiste!
sfl
< /SARC>
Imagine the stress of having to defend the indefensable! I don’t envy ‘em.
Here’s a new idea: Challenge the current progressive tax system based on the Constitution’s equal protection language. Those who are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes are being denied equal protection. The progressive tax issue is also a “general police power that is reserved to the states”, and not under the jurisdiction of the United States Government. Treat us all alike, ie, tax everyone... don’t exempt those below a certain income bracket.
Bk marked.
This should be at top of Drudge. EVERYONE should read it ....and cry for what we are about to lose.
Or how about one vote for each $100 in net taxes paid?
It was challenged in the 1930s on that basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.