The problem is a state can’t stop the Feds from taxing anyone. States can opt out of various federal programs, but that doesn’t stop the federal taxes associated with those programs.
This isn’t regulating interstate commerce it is demanding we participate in it. Another problem is that since we can’t buy health insurance across state lines, then it isn’t interstate commerce in the first place. Remember, Obama believes the Constitution to consist of “negative” rights. Not a document that constrains the federal government from overreaching, but empowers it to do so. He is the Enfant Terrible.
This isn’t regulating interstate commerce it is demanding we participate in it. Another problem is that since we can’t buy health insurance across state lines, then it isn’t interstate commerce in the first place. Remember, Obama believes the Constitution to consist of “negative” rights. Not a document that constrains the federal government from overreaching, but empowers it to do so. He is the Enfant Terrible.
If the law is ruled unconstitutional (please God)then it goes down and the tax provisions go down with it. They would need to start over.
Which is why we need to repeal the 16th amendment and do away with the leviathan of corruption it brings. If any other governmental entity wanted to search and / or seize an individual's property they would have to go before a judge and get a warrant. The IRS can seize whatever they want, whenever they want and the individual can do nothing to stop them. Even if your account is fully paid and their records show a balance of 0.00 they will still hold all of your assets indefinitely and there is nothing you can do about it.
A couple hundred years ago we fought a revolution over less tyranny than this
The problem is a state can’t stop the Feds from taxing anyone. States can opt out of various federal programs, but that doesn’t stop the federal taxes associated with those programs.
Yes, this is true. But what happens when one region of America decides to fund its “pursuit of happiness” on the labor of another region? This happened before, with disasterous results (i.e. 1860-65). My question is if 25 or more states recognize the Bill of Rights correctly for their citizens by enacting protections from the Federal Government, would the supremes be influenced by the disproportionate takings by the Feds and move to protect the Union? Can’t see even the most liberal judge wanting to create another schism within the body politic.