FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regarding the article, patriots need to bear the following in mind. Regardless what activist justices wanted everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, these justices wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had historically clarified states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the power to regulate vote-winning intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
I really didn't draw any conclusion here in Part II. My premise extends from Part I, "I should have the freedom to either buy health insurance or not free from government coercion."
I suppose Grubers would premise that everyone has a right to health insurance, or something. But what I'm saying blows past that, to questioning the constitutionality and morality of this new excise tax.
What Grubers refer to as a penalty and sometimes a fee, via www.heathcare.gov and in IRS's instruction booklets, the Internal Revenue Code classifies as an excise tax. Justice Roberts referred to it as a financial penalty which could be characterized as a tax, but I suppose it could also be characterized as extortion.
What I find ironic is if it is a tax, it's like no other tax in American history. It is in fact more of a penalty than a tax, and is being used to coerce someone like me into making a bad decision. I know my limits, and my government has just overstepped it's bounds. That's not good.