Posted on 03/23/2010 9:46:46 PM PDT by 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...."
I just worry where that thin line is in the sand when Buba pulls out an AK and feces hits the fan. This will not stand ultimately because we can't afford it. If we keep losing in court and in politics, there is very little left after that. Many people I know have a 10 second fuse and 8 seconds has already passed. If we don't win in November, what then? When we start to pay the 12% interest rates after we have lost everything, what then? When gas is $7 and bread is $5, what then?
The Dems have, from the beginning , wanted us to ride mopeds and bikes and live in a tar paper shack because we are rich and deserve to live like Bangladesh. This is the biggest stride yet of unsustainable economics. If you look close, you can see that Obama wants America to fail. Nobody can afford what he is sugesting.
If we don’t win in court, and we don’t win in November, then 34 states unite to call a constitutional convention, amend the constitution the way we want it, and then 38 states ratify it.
The liberal dumbass states are irrelevant when this approach is taken. If they don’t like it, they can secede, and we can tell them don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.LOL
I know it s/b 'precedent', but 'precedence' isn't strictly incorrect, as used here. Is it?
Well this depends how you see it. Since ill-health is a certainty, not buying insurance can be viewed as engaging in risk conduct affecting financial burdens that extend across state lines. This will be the government argument and it has the support of Gonzales v. Raich. The concurring opinion of Justice Scalia is worth a read.
I would point out that in Raich the Court essentially said that regulating the “intra-state” market of marijuana was essential(hence, why the N&P Clause could be used to effectuate the regulation of commerce here) to the regulation of the “inter-state” market. Here, to my knowledge, there is no “inter-state” health insurance market. Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines. So I would distinguish Raich in that way.
I would also argue that in all of the prior commerce clause cases there had to be economic activity that was the subject of the regulation. In Lopez, Congress attempted to regulate gun possession and the Court found it to not be a proper use of the Commerce Clause because the activity was non-economic. Here, I would argue that existing as a citizen is non-economic.
In none of the prior cases was a citizen compelled to purchase something. So none of the cases are exactly on point. It is one thing to regulate EXISTING intra-state marijuana markets as necessary and proper to effectively regulate the inter-state marijuana market. It is another thing to COMPEL someone to purchase INTRA-STATE health insurance in order to regulate INTRA-STATE health insurance markets.
I do realize that the left will argue that health insurance affects inter-state commerce due to its effect on all kinds of things related to health (supplies, etc.), but I think the fact that there is actually no commerce taking place until the government compels it to take place is a very strong argument in our favor. Again, in all other cases “commerce” was already taking place whereas here it is not until compulsion of commerce.
Sort of, it's obsolete. "Antecedent" comes close.
I'm thinking they screwed up and got lucky at the same time.
The filibuster
BTTT
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.