But there are more than 10,000 other unconstitutional laws that have been passed before this.
ML/NJ
Jim, at root of the legality of these socialist things, is the 16th Amendment. I will explain.
The imposition of income tax without apportionment was implemented in a tax code of 14 pages in length in 1913. That was the same year the 17th and 18th came into existence. All of these amendments should never have seen the light of day and each has its own sordid history.
You may be surprised to learn that Obamacare came about using exactly the same playbook that FDR used to ram through his Social Security bill which became the Social Security tax. Same thing, hardly any difference.
For Obamacare, the democrats knew the republicans (stupid republicans) would chase the Commerce Clause ‘red herring argument’ while Obama’s lawyers prepared to present a tax argument inside SCOTUS, just like FDR’s lawyers did in the 1930s in regards to Social Security. The democrats of 2009 were aware of the FDR playbook and were following it to a tee.
And you may be surprised to know that the democrats had prepared to pass a universal health insurance in the 1930s as well, but held off because ‘too many things’ were getting rammed through. As it was, the health care law that the 1930s socialists were working on was put on the shelf for a later date because the public tide was finally beginning to turn against FDR. Americans started to smell ‘dictator’ in him and they didn’t like it. He was smart enough to see the winds change direction.
For more than 70 years, the old socialist healthcare plan was sitting on the shelf but discussed in democrat socialist circles just waiting for the right timing. They found the time in 2009 when Obama was told this was his number one priority, not the financial collapse or the Wall St. fraud, the socialist healthcare plan from the 1930s was a bigger priority. Because they knew they would never have a chance again in a long, long time.
In the 1960s, the democrats of the LBJ ‘Great Society’ era pushed through Medicare on the same tax entitlement scheme as Social Security had been rammed through three decades before.
All of these income and payroll taxes are taxes on income without apportionment. So they are legal under the 16th Amendment. Without the 16th, they could not exist, or at least not for long before a court declared them unconstitutional which SCOTUS had done several times prior to 1913.
In sum, the 16th has instituted socialism into American society.
Insofar as Medicare is concerned, I am always hearing older folks express appreciation for some procedure being paid for through Medicare, and just as often I hear of procedures not covered that some think should be covered. But what I really observe is the COST of procedures being out of the range that most people are able to pay. I know from experience that most procedures and treatments in every hospital and clinic have rates that are pegged off of Medicare reimbursements, so that Medicare adjusts to rising healthcare costs while healthcare costs peg to Medicare reimbursements, forming a vicious cycle of costs spiraling out of control.
In other words, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
The only government role in healthcare that makes sense and that is appropriate is for it to foster competition, promote a free and fair marketplace, and to bust up state healthcare monopolies. Everything else can be handled quite well and much better at the local levels. There are no global solutions to healthcare that prompts federal government involvement other than busting up monopolies and ensuring free and fair markets.
We elected a populist nationalist who has repeatedly promised to take care of everybody. I honestly think that if this plan doesn’t work out, Trump’s next move is to go to the Democrats with an offer of a public option and/or at least a version of nationalized healthcare. He wants to replace Obamacare with something better. And I don’t think a former steel worker or mine worker now employed by Dollar General is going to care too much about the 10th Amendment if he gives them something better.
I was very glad, and proud, that this was Trump's take, as well. It is most certainly what The Constitution demands.
The issue is not healthcare. The issue is not whether the Feds have the constitutional right (they don’t) to be in the insurance business. The issue is the socialist revolution.
None of it should be Federal.
But then so much else should not be Federal either.
It’s gotten to the point where so many things are unconstitutional ... and people vote for it when they vote for pork coming from their Congressional delegation ... that I feel most people do not even care anymore. Not I even supposed conservatives care. They just want Federal goodies for themselves, their town, their state, whatever.
The argument used is from article 1, section 8
In Publius Huldah’s refutation, he began: “1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”
The article goes on to cite Alexander Hamilton to dispute the notion that the power to provide for the general welfare meant welfare programs as we know them.
He makes a good case.
However, the fact that Hamilton was refuting this in his day meant that the power over “general welfare” was being misunderstood from the beginning of the country.
We are seeing the latest iteration and it’s clear that from the 20th century on courts have supported the non-Hamiltonian opinion...John Roberts, for example.
So, are they unconstitutional? It depends on an originalist rather than a straight text understanding. The straight text says the congress can make “welfare” legislation and make all necessary laws enabling that power. The original history has Hamilton saying that was not the intent.
It is a muddled mess in my opinion, because that text does lead to argument.
I hate (really hate) to say it but w/o some sort of compromise we are absolutely screwed. I imagine Trump will insist on a more conservative deal than what the RINOs appear to be preparing but is also looking to the future - successes with the modified plan can lead to further disentanglements.
I hate (really hate) to say it but w/o some sort of compromise we are absolutely screwed. I imagine Trump will insist on a more conservative deal than what the RINOs appear to be preparing but is also looking to the future - successes with the modified plan can lead to further disentanglements.
bmp