[NaturalBornConservative]

"Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument." - A good article and wise words.

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.

[Amendment10]

Regardless whether an appropriations bill establishes taxes, fees or penalties, note that the Constitutions’s Clause 1 of Section 7 of Article I, the appropriations clause, uses only the term raising revenue. And raising revenue is what constitutionally indefensible Obamacare does regardless which of the previously mentioned terms that corrupt politicians and activist justices want to call it.

But more importantly, note that one of the excerpts from previous post reasonably indicates that Congress is prohibited from making appropriations bills of any kind which it cannot justify under its Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

”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 other words, regardless of any appropriations bill that Congress makes to raise revenue in the name of intrastate healthcare, Congress actually has no constitutional authority to make such a bill any more than Congress can make laws which address our 1st Amendment-protected personal freedoms.

The bottom line concerning Obamacare is the following imo. Congress wrongly ignored that it first had to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states as required by the Constitution’s Article V, the amendement in this case granting Congress the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes. And if the states had chosen to ratify such an amendment then I wouldn’t be making this post.

But corrupt Congress and corrupt Obama wrongly ignored the will of the Article V state majority, as DC has done with probably most federal spending programs that it has established for many decades, likewise wrongly establishing Obamacare outside the framework of the Constitution.

What a mess! 8^P