Posted on 02/24/2010 4:14:07 AM PST by marktwain
Late last year, it appeared that Congress would enact healthcare reform legislation that would include an individual mandate requiring uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. In response, some opponents of the legislation contended that it was unconstitutional. I wrote two columns on the topic for this site, one rejecting the libertarian objection to the proposed individual mandate, and another rejecting the federalism objection to it. Other scholars wrote similar analyses, many of which were cited by Senator Max Baucus in response to the doubters.
Even though healthcare-reform legislation appears to be stalled for now, the movement against the individual mandate continues, and the constitutional objection is still frequently raised. Judging by the email I have received, and by my perusal of claims being made on the air and online, the critics simply do not care that Supreme Court precedents going back nearly two centuries support the constitutionality of an individual mandate. They believe that it is unconstitutional anyway.
Critics say some things that would be laughed out of the Supreme Court. For instance, they make such claims as "The Constitution says nothing about health care or an individual mandate." That is true, but plainly unimportant to the constitutional analysis. The Constitution contains no express language authorizing the federal government to charter a bank, to organize an air force, or to protect the natural environment. Yet all of these functions, and many more, have been readily accommodated under the longstanding principle that the government has implied, as well as express, powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at writ.news.findlaw.com ...
The real battle, of course, is not between honest competeing views of history, but between those who believe that truth exists and those who believe that truth is whatever is convenient at any time. Michael seems to fall into the latter category. To claim that the 20th century fabrication that the 2nd Amendment only applied to a state run militia is fundamental truth, and that the Supreme Court, in searching out original documnet showing the thoughts of the writers of the Constitution is a means of falsifying history, attacks the very idea of originalism, and hence, the very idea of written law.
Just because the SCOTUS has in the past crapped all over the constitution, does not mean that we still have to put up with such fecal decisions.
More opinion unsubstantiated by any citations.
No, this one is a deal breaker. The reason is that the penalty planned by the Democrats to invoke a desire to "go along with it" is too high. Further, it is clearly targeted at young low-income people who are presently engaged in what will most certainly be a decade long battle for employment.
$250,000 fine, as has been written up and passed in various versions of Obamacare for missing a monthly payment on a personal medical insurance policy is entirely out of line.
Given the target population I do believe a smooth operator could quickly create a million or more member private militia ~ which was not part of the survivalist school nor the black moslem movements.
Such an agency would be socially disquieting in the extreme.
If unemployment doesn't abate, the private militia could easily grow to 5 million young men! If it worsens, then 10 million would not be out of question.
About that point the Constitutional resolution is something that would be decided outside the framework of normal government.
The Democrats and their running dog lackeys are playing with some serious Constitutional fire ~ the sort that in the end will leave them out of business.
It’s about what’s best for the culture, not what the Constituion says. At least that’s the opinion of the conservatives over on the other thread about the Constitution.
If Supreme Court precedents were all that (and a bag of chips), we would still be legally required, upon discovering an escaped slave, to return him to his rightful owner.
The Constitution contains no express language authorizing the federal government to charter a bank, to organize an air force, or to protect the natural environment.
Right, wrong, right. The Air Force (Originally the Army Air Corps) is the technological descendant of the armies known to the framers, as railroads and air corridors are the technological descendants of post roads. As for chartering banks and (pretending to) protect the environment (by diminishing our freedom)-- I'd just as soon they leave off, and I hope it wouldn't take a bloody fight to make it so.
As long as “living document” interpreation is allowed, no meaning can ever be “settled”.
The author is bringing a legalistic knife to a looming shootout. The noise he hears is not a thunderstorm but a growing army of patriots marching on hallowed ground. He hasn’t a clue.
“Although history has judged the Alien and Sedition Acts to be oppressive, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were also problematic: They asserted the power of states to unilaterally disregard federal law, and that assertion threatened both the supremacy and uniformity of federal law. “
GOOD! We need a lot more decentralization and if the federal government doesn’t want to stick to things we can all agree on they should be ignored.
The so called “supremacy” of Federal law is in itself a Non sequitur as the “law” in question was not authorized by we the people or our States in the Federal Constitution.
We don’t care what the Federal governments Own Courts have to say on the matter, it is not their power/rights its OUR power/rights!
To alow them to be the excursive judge of the extent of their and their appointers own power represent a severe conflict of interest. A conflict which was spoken of and sold to us by none-other then Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28.
“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm
This is clearly the product that was sold to our States and accepted, it matters not the lies and abuses of the government which took this product and twisted it into something new, for it was NEVER their power to start with.
Washington Did not empower the United States Constitution, the people of the 13 States did. To the same end they did, and they did so on the account of what was sold to us as to its meaning!
The United States Federal government was not given “unwritten” and “implied” powers as the court has been corrupted into suggesting.
Our State’s have for far too long failed to uphold their most important duty of protecting our liberty from the encroachment of the Federal Government. Our freedom and our political system were depended upon the active and resolute resistants by our States.
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.