http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5739.ZO.html
Link to Patient Protection Affordable Care Act(PPACA):
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
Congressional Findings are at pages 320-24. The Mandate itself is at pages 324-5.
It would be interesting to hear what Robert Bork has to say on this issue. Has he made any statements?
How long will this take to get to the Supreme Court?
bookmark
I believe that the commerce clause cannot be invoked here to justify 0bamacare. All the commerce clause cases involved a commodity and a health insurance policy is not a commodity it is a contract that only has value between the parties to the agreement.
Bur what about the tax argument? The mandate is not an income tax but, I have seen it described as a capitation tax-a tax on the whole person. Apparently, a capitation tax is to be apportioned among the states on the basis of census population.
I wonder if anyone has any further specific knowledge on this subject.
It’s real simple. This bill asserts federal government OWNERSHIP over the individual citizen.
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.
The government says, you must purchase health care. I say, no I don’t, because I am a free citizen in a free country. They say, but you have to, we passed a law. I say, no, I am free, have committed no crime, and nobody can force me to do things against my will. Eventually, they have to say, well, no, you are not free. We have taken that freedom and you must comply. At that point, how am I not in a position of involuntary servitude?
It’s real simple. This bill asserts federal government OWNERSHIP over the individual citizen.
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.
The government says, you must purchase health care. I say, no I don’t, because I am a free citizen in a free country. They say, but you have to, we passed a law. I say, no, I am free, have committed no crime, and nobody can force me to do things against my will. Eventually, they have to say, well, no, you are not free. We have taken that freedom and you must comply. At that point, how am I not in a position of involuntary servitude?
ping
ping...
“Moreover, unlike the recent decisions (Lopez, Morrison and Gonzales), which were all 5-4 decisions, this case was a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg in 2000. It is Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), linked in the first comment below this post.”
Bookmark ping.
Here’s my take: These suits put the Democrats at a big political disadvantage because they are left with two choices as their response to them. They can either watch as these suits make their way through the courts and make drive the news cycle ( whether or not the Democrat controlled media likes it) and in doing so serve as daily reminders of what a threat to liberty the bill is OR they can roll the dice and try to push this straight up to the Supreme Court and risk losing everything just before Election Day.
Either way we win. This will NOT be easy but we have fine minds on our side and a faith in God’s favorable view of a free America.
What if I choose to build my own widgets for personal use? Would it make any difference if the materials I used were obtained locally or out of state? Now let's say I make such wonderful widgets that some of my neighbors have asked me to build widgets for them, and are willing to compensate me for my efforts. Do I come under interstate commerce yet? If I just happen to live near a state line and some of my neighbors actually live in an adjacent state. What then?
I suppose this actually points to the larger question, what exactly did the Founders have in mind when they spoke of interstate commerce. Because it seems to me the expansive interpretation by latter day courts is that sometimes virtually any commerce could be construed as interstate commerce. Something I haven't researched, but somebody no doubt has.
I might add, that shyster dimocrats(but I repeat myself), by choosing sympathetic jurists have for decades been laying down a trail of precedent crumbs they presume to be followed by later courts. Bad business, but that’s their stock in trade.
Couldn’t a person like Buffet, or Gates or Limbaugh etc. be allowed to be ‘’self insured’’ and risk his wealth on not getting some very expensive disease that mite wipe him out financeualy? At one time you could post a bond and be self-insured as to car insurance, in some States.
courtesy ping
Supreme Court decisions are made by people.
Given the right set of people a majority will cheerfully rule that the sky is not blue and the sun doesn’t rise in the morning.