Posted on 05/11/2010 5:42:44 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
Some legal scholars, including some who normally lean to the left, believe the states have identified the law's weak spot and devised a credible theory for eviscerating it.
The power of their argument lies in questioning whether Congress can regulate inactivity -- in this case by levying a tax penalty on those who do not obtain health insurance. If so, they ask, what would theoretically prevent the government from mandating all manner of acts in the national interest, say regular exercise or buying an American car?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh Sherlock, how did you ever discover that?
Eviscerate? No, more like eradicate. This monstrosity should NEVER see the light of day.
“whether Congress can regulate inactivity”
If it was up to me, I’d have Congress inactive for a long, long time. Everything they do makes things worse!
Indeed. My Congressman Gary "shit for brains" Peters sent me a note in January asking: "what can I do to serve you in the coming months..."? My answer: Based on what I've seen from you so far, I prefer you do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We'll pay your salary to stay home and do no harm.
Duh!! Of course this is the weak point of the bill. If they are allowed this power, they are effectively taking federal ownership over individual citizens. And there is no liberty at all, because if I decline to participate, they will be telling me, no, you are not free to decline. We(the federal government) decide what you are free to NOT participate in.
My personal experience with McCollum is limited to a single meeting. However, that his mind was exceptional was apparent within a very short time.
Any who consdier him to be just another lawyer are mistaken.
While I do believe lawyers, as members of the judicial system should not hold elected office under the Separation of Powers idea, still - until we elect a whole new Congress of “Originalists”, might I gthat McCollum is a walking, talking example of a lawyer who does believe in a limited government.
Should you doubt this, ask the Bamster or RhammiePoo.
Addendum to post #7.
“gthat” should have been part of “suggest that”.
How that error occurred I don’t know.
Maybe not enough coffee?
Maybe I should learn to type - Nah, can’t be that.
FUBO
Don’t be lulled into thinking the States can win. I know I know....we all want the States to win and I actually want much more....I want repeal of the 16th and enactment of HR 25....but in the spirit of keeping our eyes open and alert to unexpected outcomes:
The legal argument in the 1930s defending Social Security was that it was a tax program first and a forced retirement savings plan 2nd. That it was a tax program was constitutional under the 16th and the SCOTUS at the time had no means to interfere in the federal government’s power to tax “income from any source without apportionment”.
The ‘inactivity’ argument has flaws. Not having a retirement savings plan in the 1930s constituted retirement planning ‘inactivity’. If Obamacare can be overturned on taxing ‘inactivity’, then Social Security payroll taxes could possibly likewise be overturned based on a person choosing to be inactive in their retirement savings. That would be a good thing! But could it be argued that Social Security is a tax on labor activity that becomes a pension upon retirement (inactivity)?
And then there is the argument that a person who is ‘inactive’ in the health insurance market can be construed to be ‘inactive’ in the health market, subtle difference. The argument has been posed by a liberal constitutional attorney that a person is never inactive in the health market because once a person is sick and needing health services they are ‘active’ in the health market.
And then there is the argument that Obamacare is not a ‘tax penalty on inactivity’ but rather a ‘tax credit on activity’, i.e. if one purchases health insurance then a tax credit is made available, all others are taxed on their income.
The bottomline on Obamacare is that it is a massive tax program and a takeover of a huge sector of the American economy, as well as a huge transformation of the American way of life.
Perhaps a better argument against Obamacare rather than the purported state argument of a ‘tax penalty on inactivity’ is that it is an unjust takeover by the federal government of a large portion of American businesses (health) without just compensation as implied by the 5th Amendment.
In any event, my motivation for being a contrarian in this is first of all to be prepared for the worse and to be informed about alternatives. To me we would do better to amend the Constitution to repeal the 16th and the 17th, and to include language in the repeal wording that would clarify the limits of the Commerce clause so that the massive reach of the federal government into the business of the States and into the lives of Americans is made more strict.
In repealing the 16th I am not at all worried about how we will fund our federal government, our armed forces, our military industrial research capacity, our courts and so on because we have a superior tax code waiting in the wings, a tax code that will boost economic growth (more than 10% increase in GDP), eliminate corporate taxation, boost the competiveness of American exports instantly by slashing their tax burden and costs by more than 20%. That tax code is only 134 pages long and includes superior enforcement and corrects a historical flaw in pre-1913 excise tax America:
because with this method of taxation and repeal of the 16th, there will be no more socialism inthe United States, the Left will have nowhere in federal government to go for funding in the United States, social taxation will cease to exist and that includes Obamacare or any manifestation of it. However, Congress can always choose what to do with federal tax revenues and that can include Social Security/Medicare funding and health insurance funding, but then the Congress can be replaced with new lawmakers that can nullify those programs except for those that have paid in and were promised a benefit.
But back to the main point, beware of believing that Obamacare will be overturned by the State lawsuits, instead be guarded and aware of history.
Gridlock...I love it.
I’ve heard that you are hot.
Really? Well I KNOW that you are hot! XOXO
No doubt in my mind that this is where we are headed. Think of how the left wants to control you. NO smoking. No fatty food. Seatbelts. The list is endless. Obama himself said the country needs to alter the behavior of Americans through legislation and that is exactly what they are trying to do.
It's for the common good you know.
bttt
worst congress in our history that i can think of.
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.