Question: Assuming the worst, how is it Constitutional for Leftists to force anyone to buy anything?
Let’s put aside all talk of what will and will not happen as the House votes on Healthcare Rationing today. Just for a moment.
Let’s instead academically and legally investigate whether the federal government is empowered to force any American to buy anything.
Is that Constitutional?
Does anyone know of any good legal essays exploring this?
We just don’t see how it’s possible for Leftists to dictate that every American must buy health insurance — a private commodity issued by private firms.
We don’t see how the IRS is authorized to police the American citizenry to determine whether individuals have bought the things the government has told them to buy.
That’s the sort of thing Hitler’s S.S. was empowered to do for him, and the Revolutionary Guard does in Iran. It’s the kind of thing Saudis and the United Arab Emirates have religious police tasked with — constantly spying on, harassing, and investigating the citizenry to ensure they’re complying with all the insane mandates from the government.
The government is only authorized to tax income by the amendment to the Constitution authorizing such action.
There is no amendment to the Constitution that empowers the government to force citizens to purchase items.
The way we read the income tax authorization is thus: if you collect income in a given year, the government must get a share of that income, as dictated by the laborious tax code that the government puts forward explaining how much income you must pay.
Nowhere in that income tax collection amendment is anything that grants the government the power to compel any of us to buy anything. They can tax the money we make. They have an institution to collect those taxes and a system in place to punish tax cheats (or, in the case of Leftists, elevate them to Cabinet positions), but there is no mechanism for forcing people to buy things.
We just do not, still, see how they can accomplish this.
Can anyone explain that to us?
It’s really an Emperor’s New Clothes moment we think. It seems so obvious, but we don’t see anyone talking about this simple fact. No matter what bill Democrats try to pass today, if it includes the forcing of Americans to buy ANYTHING, then it’s unconstitutional.
Plain and simple.
The states did not cede this power to the government.
The Founders did not give the government this power.
The states themselves don’t have the power to force citizens to buy anything.
How exactly do Leftists argue this is at all possible?
© 2010, HillBuzz. All rights reserved.
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
They claim it is under the "commerce clause"; however, I was watching c-span (I think) and one of them brought up a compelling argument against it.
The commerce clause was designed to control interstate commerce that people buy. THIS, however, is controlling what people don't purchase.
Thank God so many states are already pushing back against this atrocity. I pray that either the reps of those states see that and go "oh, crap…!" and vote "no." Or, barring that, the courts throw out the whole darned thing.
The Interstate Commerce Clause (abbreviated ICC, but not to be confused with the ICC that is the Intenational Climate Commission, another ICC that meddles in people's affairs) has pretty much been abused for non-interstate-commerce matters since sometime after the Civil war.
Repub and Dem Progressives alike — from TR to FDR — began using it to regulate pretty much everything, for no very good reason.
There has been so much bad precedent set in the name of the ICC that I don't know whether this clause can ever be properly detoxified…
the commerce clause is not really a help if it is read correctly.
As Xana stated it is for interstate commerce. It can only apply where there is interstate commerce.
The only way it can be used would be to pass an amendment that allowed people to purchase health insurance from interstate.
here is an article I just found:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
The Commerce Clause argumet can be shredded in six words:
NOT buying something is NOT commerce.
All Hillbuzzers should commit this axiom to memory.
Well, yeah, that makes sense.
Only I'm sure some lawyer could dig up more than one moldy o'l precedent where the ICC was used to command or forbid something that wasn't commerce. There could be hundreds of examples of precedents like this.
Just because they're precedents doesn't make them right. They're wrong and very bad. But it does make it harder to win in court if the climate is ideologically stacked against you.
Hey, apparently Virginia's AG was just discussing this issue http://patriotroom.com/article/how-obamacare-dies-not-buying-health-insurance-is-not-interstate-commerce” rel=”nofollow”>:http://patriotroom.com/article/how-obamacare-dies-not-buying-health-insurance-is-not-interstate-commerce
Look. It's very simple. Obama's their useful idiot. Frankly, he's so narcissistic, he could probably be coopted by the Republicans. I'm talking about the elderly, and I sincerely mean elderly, because we are talking about 70 and 80 year olds, nearing the end of long lives mostly spent in government, will be frightened that they won't be able to leave a legacy if they don't get this socialist takeover done. If we'd had term limits, we wouldn't be here.
Plainly and simply, it is not constitutional. The staid argument is that its similar to mandatory auto insurance, but it is absolutely dissimilar. You don't HAVE to operate a motor vehicle. It is an incident of the use of a public roadway. With mandated health insurance purchase, you have no choice if you are alive, you have to be covered and criminalizes failure to do so. There are tons of cases nullifying any law that criminalizes a state of being such as "addicted to drugs". In this case it would be criminalising "living without Obamacare". It is absolutely unconstitutional, they KNOW it is as well.
not only that, but the mandate with regard to auto insurance is that you are required to carry LIABILITY insurance – to cover an instance where you might harm someone else. Auto insurance is not required for your own car by law. The only instance in which one is required to carry coverage for one's own car is to meet the requirements of a lease or purchase agreement. This is completely different and any comparison to requiring health insurance – which covers the insured, not potential "victims" like the required liability insurance for drivers – is misleading at best.
And the purchase agreement stipulation of full coverage is to protect the bank's collateral. The people that gave you that loan and want to be assured that it can get it's money back. Once that loan is paid off, you no longer are required to have full insurance…only liability.
Exactly. My car is 14 years old, I own it, and the only thing it is insured for is the damages it may cause to SOMEONE ELSE. Period. Any repairs to IT are out of my pocket, NOT paid for by my insurance. I carry the minimum coverage required by law, and the law only tells me to by insurance to cover damage I do to others. As soon as the bank did not have a lien on the vehicle, I took off the insurance covering damages to my vehicle.
And if I do not wish to buy car insurance I simply do not drive a car anymore. There are many ways to get to work without it. Auto and health insurance are NOT the same.
The mandate to buy insurance is tied to the very fact that you exist. It is a tax on human life. If you wake up breathing in the United States of America, you must buy a heavily regulated service commodity or pay a penalty tax. I will not be taxed because I exist. I will gladly go to prison before I give up my personal sovereignity. I will never consent to my own enslavement.
millions upon millions of people will be joining you.
Keep in mind that the requirement to purchase car insurance (if you own a car) is a STATE requirement — not a FEDERAL one. The individual state's ability to do this derives from their STATE constitution.
Car insurance is a weak comparasion anyway. If you only have to buy "liability" insurance. It does not cover "you" but third parties you may injure.
Senator Hatch put it this way:
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi…
excellent read, btw.
I think congress and the president should be FORCED to use the same health care we are being forced to take. I'm sick of them taking the money and running!
it is against the constitution for Congress to make a law with them excluded. It is one of the reasons that this will be successfully challenged.
Yeah, but unfortunately Congress has a long precedent of not following that rule, either.
What's sad is that precedent is supposed to preserve our legal traditions, but bad precedent corrupts them.
Even if Congress has the precedent, it can be challenged in the courts. If the issue has never been before the courts, then it has not been tested properly for whether or not it is Constitutional.
It is in the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law…. etc etc."
What they are doing is unconstitutional.
Answer: It's not.
Mark my words, the mandate will be struck down, and I believe the Democrats KNOW it will be struck down. I believe they WANT it to be struck down.
The mandate is the keystone that holds this plan together. Without it, the system will collapse under abuse.
Once the system collapses, the government will have "no choice" but to "step in" and "take over". They won't "want" to, but they will "be forced to".
I really think that's the endgame here folks.
Off topic because I don't have an answer but I'm NOT HAPPY!!!!
A $hit load of this bill irks me, but I'm truly amazed that they continue to spout that an ER visit by an uninsured patient equals the govt. paying for/going in to debt for health care. Seriously, have you ever been uninsured and gone to the ER and neglected to pay your bill? I've had to negotiate a payment plan several timnes, but I've always paid for the services provided!!!
I know that there are those that abuse the system, but this crappy plan won't help with that, it will only make it worse…sigh
Praying tomorrow makes me feel better about it all, I think I'll sleep with my fingers, toes and eyes crossed
I am curious about the first 4 years where the federal gov. is "collecting money" but no one is receiving any benefits. Do they call it a tax? Are we paying for coverage which will not kick in until years later?
Supposedly the money collected during those four years will be "saved in escrow" until benefits kick in. When in hell as government ever managed to save money? Never. How many times has Social Security been raided for other projects until it's now worth a plug nickle. "Escrow" my saggy old backside.
From Pj media
There are a number of other possible constitutional challenges if the national health care legislation becomes the law of the land. Look for private citizens and employers who are fined under the new law to sue under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments
rest of the article here http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/probable-constitutio…
The same way that many drugs are federally illegal even though it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and many weapons are illegal despite the Second Amendment: by simply ignoring the Constitution.
Unfortunately, ignoring the Constitution has been going on for a long time now. Ask most people about the Kelo Supreme Court decision (which blatantly ignored the Fifth Amendment's clear words regarding eminent domain) and you'll just get a blank stare.
LATE-BREAKING: Stupak 12 is growing – 36 congressmen on the fence: http://bit.ly/al9Vry
looking at the article, I have only one thing to say: that liar Pelosi is making a claim about the position of the Catholic church, which is a position that goes against the teaching of the Catholic church. She is such a liar that a Bishop, hopefully her own Bishop should ex-communicate her on the grounds that she has defied the church as well as her misrepresentation of the Church's teaching.
Renegade, liberal nuns have betrayed the Bishops' statements about abortion funding, giving some "pro-life" Democrats the cover to vote for the bill. Nancy herself invoked St. Joseph on Friday (his principal feast day–Mar. 19). Nancy, however, got it wrong when she said that it was the feast of "St. Joseph the Worker" and then co-opted St. Joseph as a suppporter of "healthcare" for "workers." The Feast of St. Joseph the Worker is actually May 1st (instituted by Pope Pius XII to counteract the communist workers' holiday of "May Day"). March 19 celebrates St. Joseph as provider for and protector of the Holy Family.
with regard to those liberal nuns, they should be outed and ex-communicated.
The Church has been way too tolerant with regard to their behaviour. It is time to send a message that it will not be tolerated.
Pat,
I know.. wink wink… I am a Catholic…
St. Joseph the Worker is celebrated here on May 1, not March 19 which is a feast associated with the Holy Family.
What Pelosi did was truly offensive.
I've read that Nancy's Bishop permits that she receive the Holy Communion. By rights, and I don't write this to judge any Catholics who are pro-choice, there are reasons for being excommunicated from the Catholic Church. One's support of abortion rights is one of them as it is a direct challenge to Catholic teachings on abortion. Many Catholics have become used to picking and choosing what they believe about Catholic dogma. I've been guilty of this myself, but my views on the issue of abortion have run the gamut. I'm now back in line with Church teaching, and that's mainly because I believe that life does indeed begin at conception. The Church is also against contraception, but I am not because contraception, when used properly, and when working correctly, prevents the need for abortion.
the hierarchy in the Vatican or who is above the Bishop can give the Bishop a slap on the wrist.
The Vatican has the power to insist upon her ex-communication.
In fact Catholics in America should be insisting upon her ex-communication because she is defying the Church with her stance. Not only that she is distorting church teachings. That is sufficient reason to see her ex-communicated.
I posted your link over at FreeRepublic, to see if we get a few bites on it. There might be others who have also been hearing that. Good news, if true.
Thanks!
Levin has his legal challenge all ready to go from Landmark Legal. He is the brainiac on this.
Levin's legal challenge is against the Slaughter solution not the mandate…as of yet.
I don't think Levin has standing to sue for the mandate but the states do, but he may find some way around this. Let's hope so.
I am not a legal beagle by any means but I have been reading about Constitutional amendments. This might not help immediately but would stop future tricks. There are two ways to get an amendment to the Constitution…either Congress proposes an amendment OR the States can propose an amendment. The Prohibition amendment was proposed by Congress and passed by them and a three-quarters majority of the States. The Repeal of prohibition was proposed by the States and passed by the States then passed by Congress. It takes a two-thirds majority to propose an amendment (34). It takes a three-fourths majority to ratify the amendment. (38) There are right now 37 States that are passing legislation to block the feds. from imposing on their States. That is enough to propose an amendment to the Constitution without Congress and almost enough to ratify it. I am not sure of all the legal implications and don't know how to contact the Judge on Fox or Mark Levin to ask him. Can't the States propose an amendment that repeals or alters the commerce clause? Are their other clauses that could be amended to stop this takeover from future Congresses? I think that the change would require a three-fourths majority in Congress too. However, I know that there are several amendments that were passed by Congress but never ratified by the States. They are still on the books and could still be enacted. If that's true for Congress, it should hold true for the States.
The Founding Fathers tried to set up checks and balances to protect "We the People" from a runaway government. What say you?
The Constitution does not allow "negative liberties." In other words, no one can be coerced by the federal government to purchase something. Healthcare is different from car insurance because you are only compeled to buy car insurance if you have a car and a license. That is a choice. If you chose to buy a car and get a license then you can be compelled to buy car insurance. Actually, you are only required to insure the other driver, the driver that you may hit and injure. By requiring every American Citizen to buy health insurance the government is imposing negative liberties. In my opinion that will be the Constitutional test that will ultimately make this piece of legislation be overturned in the Supreme Court.
No mystery. Screw the rules. They do because they can. Unless something stands in their way.
http://jimwalterpix.typepad.com
HillBuzz — if you get a chance, if you could add these videos to your post here.
This is a series of videos of VA's atty general. I called his office last week to enourage him and let them know so many citizens are begging him to do this.
Whatever happens today.. THIS IS NOT OVER, NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
If you hillbuzzers get a change, watch all of them, it is worth it.
on c-span, part 1 an part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/v/LLGK53Pcr9k
http://www.youtube.com/v/TlXgUPihAuI
at a 10th amendent rally in feburary 2010. a great! watch… listen ard the 3 minute point.
http://www.youtube.com/v/w7q2xdc_78k
help!!
i'm trapped in moderation
HillBuzz — if you get a chance, if you could add these videos to your post here.
This is a series of videos of VA’s atty general. I called his office last week to enourage him and let them know so many citizens are begging him to do this.
Whatever happens today.. THIS IS NOT OVER, NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
If you hillbuzzers get a change, watch all of them, it is worth it.
on c-span, part 1 an part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGK53Pcr9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlXgUPihAuI
at a 10th amendent rally in feburary 2010. a great! watch… listen ard the 3 minute point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7q2xdc_78k
and delegate Bob Marshall who sponsored the VA Federal rationcare ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3ryza5FQo0
HillBuzz — if you get a chance, if you could add these videos to your post here.
This is a series of videos of VA’s atty general. I called his office last week to enourage him and let them know so many citizens are begging him to do this.
Whatever happens today.. THIS IS NOT OVER, NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
If you hillbuzzers get a change, watch all of them, it is worth it.
on c-span, part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGK53Pcr9k
c-span part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlXgUPihAuI
VA atty general at 10th sovereinty rally. a great watch, listen ard the 3 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7q2xdc_78k
an VA state delegate Bob Marshall, he is the co-sponsor of the NO federeal rationcare bill that was passed 3 weeks ago in VA
I spoke with someone in his office as well. They are serious and ready to fight back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3ryza5FQo0
and my fav. b/c millions upon millions of people are at this point now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM0SpOo-WZo
AMEN SISTER!
"We just don’t see how it’s possible for Leftists to dictate that every American must buy health insurance — a private commodity issued by private firms."
Don't you think this health insurance is just the first of many "must buys" we'll get from the Obama Administration? I foresee that every month we'll cough up a majority of our paycheck to the IRS, so some faceless bureaucrat on a secret panel can inform us that that we're ineligible for a pill or a procedure. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am heartsick that my 23-year-old father — who I never had the honor to meet — gave his life in WW II for Americans to wind up under this guy's thumb.
IF the Senate bill passes (and I'm still not certain they have the votes), it will be challenged immediately by a number of state attorneys general. They will challenge the individual mandate, among other things. As soon as a challenge is filed, enforcement of the law will be stayed until the issue is resolved, which will take years.
The commerce clause cannot be stretched far enough to cover the individual mandate. This will give the textualists on the Court an opening to severely restrict federal commerce clause legislation. I think they'll use it.
Aren't we glad Dr. U ticked off the Supreme Court at the SOTU?
bob marshall: are u a citizen or a serf?
hillbuzz — my apologies for the mulitple entries, I was in moderatation and so reposted items. Sorry about that.
Hi y'all,
When I get all gloomy about the commerce clause and precedent, I'm not trying to eeyore.
In fact, a successful argument that the commerce clause should not apply could help overturn years of bad precedent. Maybe.
We all know that our founders never intended a country where one man could force another to buy something: that's robbery (as in, hand me your money and I'll repay you by not beating you up). But many in the courts and legislatures seem to have forgotten that.
Yes, Libertarian Mom, I am very glad Dr O has pissed of the SOTU. May he continue to do so every day
That should read, pissed off the Supreme Court at the SOTU, of course :-p
Xana: you are not being an eeyore. But I know millions of people now are backed into a corner, and they feel as this woman in the video.
I was feeling down, now I am feeling calm and definiant. This is exactly what caused this country to be formed in the first place 200+ years ago.
And if that fight has to be fought again, so be it.
This lady makes a lot of sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM0SpOo-WZo
Here are my thoughts on what I think the Dems are wanting to do (re: constitutionality of forcing citizens to buy insurance).
First, they will implement some new laws to allow multistate coops, as private insurance co's start to fail due to covering pre-existing conditions without higher premiums.
Then, the part of health care bill that forces us to buy insurance gets struck down eventually as being unconstitutional.
People don't have to buy any more. The new coops start to fail. The gov't must step in to consolidate them. One system now. Single payer. Nationalize it, support it with taxes. Now we aren't buying a policy, we just have higher taxes which are constitutional.
Yep, the whole thing is to collapse the private health insurance industry and making things so bad and so expensive that the people will cry out for the government to "help" and voila single-payer.
I believe you are right
This sort of strategy is being employed on several fronts, but it is fairly "transparent" and it should not take much by way of argument to make the culpability of the executive and legislative branches in Washington for the collapse clear to ordinary citizens.
The whole concept is unconstitutional. We are either a constitutional republic or we are a dictatorship. One or the other.
IF this unconstitutional monstrosity passes, two things still give me a great deal of hope: 1) November is coming; and 2) The varous lawsuits already lined up to be filed, in tandem with the 30-something states currently enacting/proposing "opt out" legislation.
BUT, one thing both frightens and saddens me: That the IRS will apparently be given real-time access to OUR bank accounts if the monstrosity passes, REGARDLESS what the states do. Sundancefan posted last week, I think, with a detailed explanation of how we're going to be forced to pay a federal tax on the costs, not necessarily being forced to buy health insurance per se. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I think I've got the gist of the post correct. If anyone can offer any comfort on that score, I'd be eternally grateful.
I hope someone is looking into whether such access is constitutional.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the federal government does have the authority to require citizens/residents to purchase health insurance by using the ICC, the power to tax income, and the general welfare clause, then what exactly is the limit to that power?
Can the federal government require everyone to purchase a car from Government Motors (GM)? After all, everybody wants a car, it would be good for the economy, and those union workers sure need a job. Buying cars also has a much closer relationship to the ICC than does purchasing health insurance.
Could future pro-gun legislators use that power to require everyone to buy a gun? Guns are goods that are usually sold in interstate commerce, people want to have the ability for self-defense, and we could even use the 2nd Amendment to bolster the argument: hey, the federal government's just helping you with your individual right to bear arms. In Switzerland, males are issed assault rifles for their militia service and required to keep them at home, but Switzerland has very little crime.
If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, then what is the limit? Is there anything that they cannot force you to buy?
Of course, if you know that each home has a rifle, criminals think twice about robbing it.
"general" welfare has nothing to do with "social welfare"…. The Constitution or rather the clause has to be read in its context.
It refers to giving the Congress the power to raise an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines – that is needed for the general welfare of the country.
It does not apply to the citizens of the country.
Absolutely!
does anyone here post at Hillaryis44 ??
I do, but not as frequently as here.
I received an email from Fr. Frank Pavone (head of Priests for Life) last night and wanted to pass on some information. He will be leading a prayer service today for Congress and their wives, a custom Congress has not done in sometime. Remember the Dems are trying to pass a bad law on the Sabbath during the Lenten season. Please join in praying with Fr. Pavone and Congress to stop this madness of a HCB.
Thanks for your time.
God Bless America now and forever.
He was just on Fox.
He said we will have to work together to fix whatever damage is done today.
Senator Hatch spoke about this in length on the Floor of the Senate during the debate on Health Care a week or so before the infamous Christmas Eve vote. Senator Hatch spoke about regulating an activity someone already participates in versus forcing someone to participate in an economic activity. I wrote in depth about his remarks quoting most of his speech here:
http://constitutionalgov.net/?p=1309
Pat Cadell was just on Fox.
He said the American people are having tea parties and Democrats in DC are holding Koolaid parites.
He said the Democrats are committing political Jonestown. haha.. I love that term.
He also said Pelosi is threatening Dems with removing members from thier chairmanships.. sub committes ect.
SEIU and Moveon .org are threatening to rum primary candidates against them.. no funding ect.
This is America? I am beyond disgusted.
I trust Pat Cadell and believe he knows what he talks about.
Pat Cadell is a good man. He obviously loves his country
Impeachment can happen for Obama–
If the midterm's are successful, and the right takes back congress– we then will have the majority and the votes to do just that–! So' there is hope,,,,even if this Health care pass's, either way, I believe the Dem's have screwed themselves!