Posted on 03/27/2010 5:06:40 AM PDT by highlander_UW
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is the text of the 13th Ammendment that abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude.
Obamacare is not a tax because money is not being collected by the government, but the mandatory purchase clause of Obamacare does require an individual to, against their will, purchase products from a private corporation.
If the federal government can dictate how one spends one's individual money where is the limit? If they can force one to spend 20% of one's money can they force them to spend 100%? Once the bottle is opened there is no closing it.
If individuals no longer have rights to the product of their labor then they have no indivudal property rights.
A condition where one must work without renumeration is servitude.
I'm not a legal scholar, so my question is, does Obamacare, in addition to being unconstitutional on the grounds that it fails to adhere to any of the enumerated powers of Congress in Section 8 also violate the 13th Ammendment?
Sort of the same as we will give you a ‘race based’ loan for college if you sign up to work for the government for the next ten years.
Is BO/BS a socialist?
Yes, it is. But no, the judicial bosses won’t respect that. Fathers’ rights proponents already tried referencing the 13th Amendment.
But in your example one chooses to enter into the arrangement. If I choose to buy a catastrophic health insurance program and save money for the deductible, or if I had enough money that I didn't need insurance and could just pay for all medical expenses out of pocket I would still be compelled to purchase a product. By forcing me to purchase something I many not want or need I have lost ownership over my own finances...and that involuntary loss of ownership of my finances seems to be a violation of the 13th amendment.
Well it’s not capitalism...
That's an interesting comparison. It seems to me that being a father is an act one does, and the responsibility of supporting one's child then is in direct connection to one's act. Now on the other hand one isn't taking an action to require health insurance. One may never get sick in one's life, whereas the child will have certain needs such as food, clothing etc. I don't see these as the same.
And it's not constitutional either.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
That is Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. No where in there is the power to require one to use private funds to purchase products.
What I'm asking is, in addition to Obamacare being unconstitutional on those grounds is it also unconstitutional as a violation of the 13th amendment. If so, I find it ironic that it'd be an African-american president who is violating the abolition of slavery amendment.
I would be nice if the courts could read your text, but of course, they are in on the takeover. They have little interest in the Constitution except to administer the oaths which are quickly broken.
It would be nice....
I hadn’t seen that one, thanks. So I’m not the only one seeing the violation here.
The quality will decrease as more people demand the services.
There was a post on an article by Star Parker that used supply and demand on apples as an example. But the basic issue is, what the democrats claim will happen has zero chance of actually happening because the world doesn't work that way.
There is absolutely no way to add 30 million people, reduce costs, improve service frequency and quality all all with fewer doctors. Democrats lie...I know that's redundant but bears the emphasis.
The politicians are removed from reality because they have their political selfishness in the way. This is not about healthcare, but a power grab for Democrats. They want us to be more dependent on government. Government cannot do many things right now. Many people who work in government have very little motivation or incentives to be outstanding in what they do.
Google “milton friedman health care” to see about this and other problems.
The state AG’s seem to be united behind a 10th Amendment challenge (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.)
There are private citizens who are making challenges on other grounds and I imagine there are other groups-private businesses, e.g., who may be taking another approach.. It is a multi-pronged challenge.
Problem with some of the challenges is that harm has to be done before a lawsuit can be filed and some of the health care laws don’t take effect for several years. Some of it could be changed or repealed by then.
Even better. It's constitutionally defined treason.
[From the first legal paper written after Ratification and at the request of Congress]
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
View of the Constitution of the United States
Yes, this is my argument. On what basis did slave owners assert the power to force slaves to work, against their will? Answer: OWNERSHIP. They had to assert legal ownership over the slave, in order to compel them.
Likewise, as a free man, no one can compel me to purchase a product or participate in any particular commerce, absent a claim of some form of ownership over me. Otherwise, I am free to sit in the park and do nothing.
Thus, to compel individuals to purchase a product against their will requires an assertion of ownership of the individual, and establishes a relationship of servitude.
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.