That's a boat, right?
Posted on 11/19/2009 11:17:52 AM PST by wzevonfan
Self defense, your will to live ...
If you pin your hopes on the courts, you are probably going to be very sorry.
Well, the Federalist Society in NYC is having a debate on this very topic tonight:
http://www.fed-soc.org/events/eventID.1921/event_detail.asp
So I’ll let you know if you’re crazy or right to be concerned tomorrow.
That's a boat, right?
If that happens it will provoke the ultimate crisis that the Liberals are really hoping for anyway. There will not be the revenue to fund the system, but by then they will have driven most if not all of the private insurers out of business. This will leave the majority of the population with no health coverage, at which time the Libs will “solve” it by instituting Canadian-style single payer. Probably funded through a VAT tax or something similar.
You ain’t crazy! That IS the plan.
You’re correct. Orrin Hatch has raised this point, Daniel Akaka has acknowledged it, and here’s a fairly decent write-up on the issue from the Washington Post, of all places http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html.
However, even if the individual mandates are thrown out, pieces of legislation generally include “severablility provisions” which provide that the rest of the law stays in intact if one portion is found unconstitutional. That unconstitutional portion is “severed” out and the rest continues.
If a ruling should come down, the Soops declare that indeed, compulsory purchase of a product is not Constitutional, my guess is Congress simply writes up some new piece of addendum-legislation to declare it a tax. By that point, whatever Dems voted for it have already lost their seats, the damage incurred by violation of a campaign pledge negligible at best.
In United States vs Reynolds, the SCOTUS ruled that coercing citizens to enter into a contract (which is what health insurance is) violated the 13th Amendment by creating a “wheel of servitude”.
While the courts do run wild with limitations of “privilege,” even they have some limitations of their own - at least structurally. They can’t let the cat out of the bag and make it obvious they’ve declared omnipotent despotism, so they have to pretend to be reigned in by the Constitution at some level.
Denying the constitutionality of forcing people to buy health insurance may be one of them - unless they try to duck behind the auto insurance requirement as stare decisis (itself a violation of rights, but whatever...).
Another suit which will be inescapable is that of denying a competitive business environment to healthcare professionals. To completely nationalize an entire industry destroys the opportunities of millions of people to compete in the free market, and this is (presumably) a denial of Constitutional freedom.
But then again, we’re talking about trusting judges to protect rights...
Unconstitutional?!
Ha! HaaaaaHaaaaaa, Bwaaaaahhhaaaa, haaaaa haa!
That’s a great laugh. In today’s Amerika, the constitution is an abstract piece of paper some old white guys came up with. Not important, and not used.
I hope people from South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, Indiana, North Carolina, VIRGINIA, are paying attention. All of your wonderful Democrat senators couldn’t care less what you think, and they have no interest in representing you. They are about to vote to proceed on Obama care and then ultimately vote for it. You better burn down the phones on Capitol Hill.
Welcome, Captain Obvious...
I can’t believe you have been a lurker for years and just now figured this out.
THE GOAL is single payer govt controlled system, using the strategy Newt Gingrich proposed (only in reverse) of allowing private insurance companies to “wither on the vine”
Obama is on tape saying so.
Does anyone think he changed his mind on that?
“That unconstitutional portion is “severed” out and the rest continues”
That’s exactly what worries the poster! Insurance companies have reluctantly endorsed reform as a quid pro quo: “we’ll accept guaranteed issue requirements IF you impose an individual mandate.” If the mandate is eliminated and guaranteed issue remains, premiums will skyrocket along with the number of uninsured. And just as the financial crisis “made” us do REALLY stupid things that we never would have considered under calmer circumstances, you can rest assured that in the resultant health crisis, Congress will leap to the rescue by placing caps on premiums or imposing other restrictions that effectively drive private plans out of business. The public plan will be the only game left in town.
Of course, the CBO never scores scenarios such as this as they are forced to assume that a pending bill will work exactly as advertised and that all provisions will be enforced by the courts.
Second, great post; can't wait to read the responses from our esteemed, highly educated fellow Freepers.
That's why they fashioned this "healthcare" bill as a tax bill - under tax law, agreement to contractual tax obligations and their associated waiver of rights are presumed by the court.
That's why, for example, you can't claim the 5th to protect yourself against producing evidence against yourself - the court "presumes" that you've freely and knowingly waived your 5th Amendment right, and traded it in for a 5th Amendment privilege that can be limited at the pleasure of the court, solely so that you can enjoy the privilege of being taxed without rights (no joke - that's the actual government assertion and the courts legal presumption).
It's the same for any rights - including those specified by the 13th. Under tax law, they are presumed to be surrendered in favor of privileges limited at the pleasure of the court (which inevitably means "gone").
Not John Thune in South Dakota........The Dem is Johnson he is all for it and he is half brain dead after stroke before the last election
Wait until the proof gets out that ALL the laws passed/decreed by The Messiah were not signed by a natural-born Constitutionally elligible person who occupied the Oval Office illegally?
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.