Vanity: Time to Dust Off Supreme Court Precedence Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. 259 U.S. 20 (1922)

U.S. Supreme Court ^

[jsdjason]

Just a few salient points from the case closest to being on point regarding Congress trying to disguise an illegal regulation of interstate commerce as a TAX. Hint, this is exactly what they are arguing in this healthcare bill.

259 U.S. 38: "Where the sovereign enacting the law has power to impose both tax and penalty the difference between revenue production and mere regulation may be immaterial, but not so when one sovereign can impose a tax only, and the power of regulation rests in another. Taxes are occasionally imposed in the discretion of the legislature on proper subjects with the primary motive of obtaining revenue from them and with the incidental motive of discouraging them by making their continuance onerous. They do not lose their character as taxes because of the incidental motive. But there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment. Such is the case in the law before us. Although Congress does not invalidate the contract of employment or expressly declare that the employment within the mentioned ages is illegal, it does exhibit its intent practically to achieve the latter result by adopting the criteria of wrongdoing and imposing its principal consequence on those who transgress its standard."

259 U.S. 41: "the court, speaking of the extent of the taxing power, used these cautionary words:'There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself. It would undoubtedly be an abuse of the power if so exercised as to impair the separate existence and independent self-government of the States, or if exercised for ends inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution.'"

259 U.S. 43: "The court, there, made manifest its view that the provisions of the so-called taxing act must be naturally and reasonably adapted to the collection of the tax and not solely to the achievement of some other purpose plainly within state power [my words: to regulate an authority solely within the state]. For the reasons given, we must hold the Child Labor Tax Law invalid...."

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT

[jsdjason]

This is still good law, it has been distinguished, but it’s still good. The Supreme Court has been reigning in Congress’ ability to regulate interstate commerce over time.

See Lopez v. U.S. 514 U.S. 549 where they struck down a law regulating “Gun-Free School Zones” because there was no actual commerce taking place. This case will also be very powerful because again, how is being a citizen “commerce?”

[jsdjason]

See this for U.S. v. Lopez (1995). These 2 cases will be our strongest IMO (again I’m no attorney and this isn’t legal advice...get a lawyer if you think you are harmed and get one el quicko).

http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/case.html

[Binstence]

McCollum was on Greta tonight and was superb. He put the complex matter into the most cogent language that even a rank and file democrat ideologue (who remembers patriotism) could understand.

I still think the masses are the problem and the dems are simply exploiting them. There is still hope. If conservatives could adopt McCullum’s clear, unified message and speak with a more pared down, (mass media friendly) voice the masses could be an informed force to be reckoned with.

Right now they are too confused and afraid (Think: The scene in “Its a Wonderful Life” when there is a bank run on the Bailey Savings & Loan) to react appropriately.

[Ken H]

"An act of Congress which clearly, on its face, is designed to penalize, and thereby to discourage or suppress, conduct the regulation of which is reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the States, cannot be sustained under the federal taxing power by calling the penalty a tax."

Hasn't the expanded reach of the Commerce Clause since 1922 severely narrowed what is exclusively reserved to the States? Justice Scalia said:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

J. Scalia, concurring in Raich

[musicman]

BFLR

[April Lexington]

A regulatory assessment is not a tax. No revenue component. Pelosi would have been safer calling this a health tax, like booze and cigarette tax. Here, its a fee for service and I don;t see how it will withstand constitutional scrutiny. Watch Sotomayor. Will she uphold the constitution or just lick his boots?

[jonrick46]

I just fired your citation to my friend Rob McKenna. He is working on an effort to implode the entire Obamacare monstrosity with the careful aim of a David. We can pray it will be successful.

[Clyde5445]

Is this close to the point in which FL. and VA are using as precedent or no precedent. There were a couple state right cases recently that FL and Va are citing.

[Waco]

Get the birth cert!!!!!

[spokeshave]

" how is being a citizen “commerce?”

Because you emitt carbon dioxide which can subsequently cross state lines and so cause global warming interstate.

[Clyde5445]

You can disregard my comment(29). I just heard Fla. AG Bill McCollum on Greta.

[historyrepeatz]

I actually NEVER thought the SCOTUS would rule in favor of Bush during the attempted election theft by Gore in Florida, but.. they did. There IS hope.

[Steelfish]

Under the overarching “Necessary & Proper” Clause [Art I. sec. 8 Cl.17] in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that that Congress could regulate the personal use of marijuana for medical use (cancer and serious illness) even under physician prescription and explicitly sanctioned by state law in order to secure a broad federal social purpose.

The federal law pre-empted the state law for this reason. This case allows for federal regulation of private and personal choices in one’s control of health.

I am not saying that Lopez v. US will not present an obstacle. But in Lopez, it was clearly not commerce related. It dealt with “possession of handguns” near a local school.

[historyrepeatz]

a Tax IS a penalty.

[jsdjason]

Here they aren’t regulating ANY social conduct. The marijuana case is distinguishable because there they were actually engaging in SOMETHING. Here people are merely engaging in living as a U.S. Citizen. To my knowledge the government is relying on the Commerce Clause and Taxing power to accomplish their nefarious plot. Thus, I think Lopez and Bailey are more on point than Raich.

[antceecee]

Bookmark

[antceecee]

"Here they are trying to regulate mere existence as a U.S. citizen. "

Pretty much sums it up!

[Red Steel]

Great. Bump!

[jsdjason]

Just had an interesting thought about this case. If the government truly can mandate a citizen to purchase a good or service, then their really is no limit. They could mandate that you buy practically anything.

If that is true, and Obamacare is upheld, then I sure hope the next republican President mandates that every citizen buy a gun (don’t worry, they wouldn’t even know how to load it), because we know how much liberals hate those. Maybe the government should order the public to purchase subscriptions to Rush 24/7? I wonder if it would be good SOCIAL POLICY to require everyone to buy gas-guzzling SUVs because Americans need to have big automobiles for their own protection. After all, Government knows best!