Is it constitutional?

Well the next round of fighting seems to be in the courts. Several States have promised to sue over the question if mandating Americans to purchase insurance is constitutional.

Obama and most of the Democrats claim it is exactly the same as forcing people to purchase auto insurance but the reply is that driving is a priveledge, not a right so mandates to support their priveledge is reasonable, while living is not a priveledge and should not be punnished by requiring the living to purchase something they will be forced to pay for during their entire time living.

So what do you guys think? Is it constitutional?

I believe the law is un-Constitutional as far as the mandates that the bill forcing citizens to purchase a product or good under threat of force or confiscation of personal property.

I also believe it un-Constitutional based on the mandates it forces on states to expand state programs.

I would like to see if any of the AG's from the states use Printz/Mack v. United States in their arguments. I understand it is a ruling on forcing officers to do something but wonder if it could apply as a state's rights ruling. It's one that you hear very little about and Sheriff Mack likes to point out that he was the only person to successfully sue Bill Clinton's administration for a not-sex related matter. :lol:

on Friday morning at about 7:30 a.m., June 27, 1997, CBS News called Sheriff Mack and congratulated him on his victory. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs and told the federal government, i.e., the Clinton administration, that it could not compel the states or the states' officers to administer a federal regulatory program. Justice Scalia delivered the decision for the majority, which was a tenuous 5-4 split.

His favorite quote from the ruling made this entire battle and ordeal completely worthwhile: "But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location, as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Now if our senators and representatives would follow this ruling?

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=048614

I can honestly say that I am unsure if the Courts will allow this but I am hoping they will not.

If forcing people to buy insurance is okay then what is next? Force everyone to buy certain cars? Force everyone to buy certain homes? Force everyone to buy certain foods?

Should the Government control every aspect of your life? Well this is the first step of that goal.

I can honestly say that I am unsure if the Courts will allow this but I am hoping they will not.

 

If forcing people to buy insurance is okay then what is next? Force everyone to buy certain cars? Force everyone to buy certain homes? Force everyone to buy certain foods?

 

 

 

Should the Government control every aspect of your life? Well this is the first step of that goal.

In my opinion, the progressive leftists' next target will be repealing the 2nd Amendment or making it damn near impossible to own a firearm.

Well... it may not be next. It has to be on their agenda, though.

In my opinion, the progressive leftists' next target will be repealing the 2nd Amendment or making it damn near impossible to own a firearm.

 

Well... it may not be next. It has to be on their agenda, though.

The next push is going to be immigration "reform". I predict something will get shoved through on immigration before October.

The next push is going to be immigration "reform". I predict something will get shoved through on immigration before October.

I agree with you, guns are too much, there are a huge number of Democrats who believe in the right to bear arms, that will never fly.

Immigration is safer, even the conservatives agree that things as they are must be changed. I see a "guest workers" program to be comming so they can pay some taxes on their earnings to get conservative support. I do think they will have to deal with the border though, the American people are mad enough as it is, if the Democrats suddenly showed some concern with closing off the border they could win back some public support.

Ehh... I was being facetious in a way.

You are all correct, though. Yet I believe gun control is not off the table. Once we are stripped of all of our rights: Obamacare in full swing, cap and tax passes, etc; they take away our right to defend ourselves. It would make kicking in your door, forcing you into submission, and escorting you to an internment camp for not paying taxes a lot easier.

Immigration is indeed safer, but I don't think it serves the statists' interests by closing the border. Pass amnesty now... ten years from now when we are flooded again... pass amnesty again... create a stronger constituency with each passing year.

It will be fun to watch Barry O try to sell this idea, though. Obama has to be pragmatic about this one, because he knows that he can't point to European countries as an example.

Either way, I believe that the Democrats will pin "racism" on the Republicans if they put up a fight on any sort of amnesty legislation, etc.

 

You are all correct, though. Yet I believe gun control is not off the table. Once we are stripped of all of our rights: Obamacare in full swing, cap and tax passes, etc; they take away our right to defend ourselves. It would make kicking in your door, forcing you into submission, and escorting you to an internment camp for not paying taxes a lot easier.

Here you go, RO...

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Here you go, RO...

 

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Eek! Right wing extremists! Eek!

Thanks, comrade. I will send this link to flag@whitehouse.org

Defeat socialism in your own life. Don't wait for anyone else to do it for you!

(1) If you live in subsidized housing, like Gregory Lee Giusti , move. Into the street, if necessary. But not to a shelter. All shelters receive government support one way or another-either getting money directly from the government, using government-subsidized resources, or being subsidized via the tax code.

(2) If you're on food stamps, tear them up, throw them away, and don't get any more. Just starve. Food banks are a no-no, just like shelters. All non-profits are government subsidized through the tax code.

(3) If you're on Medicaid, or your children are on SCHIP, just say no! Pay out of pocket or get sick and die. Like the man said, "Give me liberty AND give me death!"

(4) If you are on Medicare, drop out. Refuse to use your Medicare card, and pay for all your medical expenses yourself. You can try to get medical insurance, of course. Good luck with that. Aside from supplemental Medicare coverage, you'll probably have to go to Switzerland, or something.

(5) Pull your kids out of school. Obviously, public schools are socialist. But so are charter schools that receive public money. And even purely private schools employ teachers who went to public school. Yes, I know it's shocking, but it's true! So, no school! It's socialist, through and through.

(6) Stay off the streets. Almost all streets, roads and highways in America are socialist. Private roads are incredibly rare, so unless you live on one, stay off the streets entirely. Besides, you can't buy gas without paying state and federal taxes.

(7) Stay off the sidewalks. They're just as socialist as the streets, if not moreso.

(8) Stop using municipal water. Municipal water is socialist. Use only commercial bottled water for cooking, bathing, clothes-washing, etc.

(9) Tell the fire department to screw off. Notify your local fire department that if your house catches on fire, you do not want them to come. They're socialists, after all. You'd rather have your children die a horrible death.

(10) Tell the police to screw off, too! Notify your local police department that you don't need their help if anyone steals your stuff, or tries to kill you or anything like that. In fact, you'll kill them if they try. You've warned them politely... this time!

So that's it, folks! Spread the message far & wide. No one can free you of socialism but you yourself!

.

.

To answer Phreakwars

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Adam Smith

1) There should be no subsidized housing.

2) There should be no food stamps.

3) You are forced to buy into Medicaid, you should collect the benefits of the program if needed,

4)You are forced to buy into Medicare, you should collect the benefits of the program if needed,

5) You are forced to pay taxes for public schooling even if you have to send your kid to private school so they don't end up being dumbasses.

6) You are forced to pay taxes for those roads. Use them!

7) Same as above.

8) Governments tend to monopolize the cheapest water option. You have little choice here.

9) Same as above.

10) The protection of citizens from aggression is the reason for government. It ain't socialism. Government services are not neccesarrily socialist.

Paul Rosenberg is a goon. Getting value traded services for the taxes you pay IS NOT socialism.

And all of these services are provided for by the local government. Not the federal. Not even the state in most cases. The local government, no matter how urban or how rural, contains a wealth of efficiency when compared to the ladder upwards to state and then federal.

Smaller government entities, i.e. the local, no matter how inefficient cannot compare to the monstrous inefficiency of the federal government. Even Chicago, with all the corruption, is more efficient than the federal government.

I say, if you pay a tax on it, it is socialism. Doesn't matter if it's a forced tax on people who work, like SS and Medicare, or a tax on tobacco that one could avoid by simply not smoking, it is socialism. The recent tax hike on smokes went to cover children who do not have health insurance, nothing to do with covering any tobacco smoker. Tell me that isn't socialism.

You are forced to buy into Medicare, you should collect the benefits of the program if needed

You are forced to buy Healthcare insurance, you should collect the benefits of the program if needed.... right?

If THAT is unconstitutional, then so isn't medicare. Surely if we don't need health care for able bodied people, then we don't need to contribute to retired people either.

So what I am saying here, is there are many government programs out there, that we don't WANT to have to contribute for because we feel we get nothing out of it, yet we never take into consideration all the amenity's of life that we are already getting at a very reasonable rate, each and everyone of them, socialism because we are all pooling in our tax pennies here and there for this and that, to make it all possible.

.

.

I say, if you pay a tax on it, it is socialism. Doesn't matter if it's a forced tax on people who work, like SS and Medicare, or a tax on tobacco that one could avoid by simply not smoking, it is socialism. The recent tax hike on smokes went to cover children who do not have health insurance, nothing to do with covering any tobacco smoker. Tell me that isn't socialism.

 

And why should the rules be any different for any other forced (Mandated) social buy in policy... like say health insurance?

 

You are forced to buy Healthcare insurance, you should collect the benefits of the program if needed.... right?

 

If THAT is unconstitutional, then so isn't medicare. Surely if we don't need health care for able bodied people, then we don't need to contribute to retired people either.

 

So what I am saying here, is there are many government programs out there, that we don't WANT to have to contribute for because we feel we get nothing out of it, yet we never take into consideration all the amenity's of life that we are already getting at a very reasonable rate, each and everyone of them, socialism because we are all pooling in our tax pennies here and there for this and that, to make it all possible.

.

.

First off. I can't believe anyone even responded to the stupid crap that was posted by Phreak. It was obvious bait for some ridiculous theory.

Second. If everyone pays because they are socialist, explain the 51% of people who pay no federal income tax but benefit from the system. They pay absolutely nothing or worse get back money, but still benefit from the programs.

Shouldn't everyone be invested?

Busted for watching FOX NEWS !!

Hannity, April 8: "50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes." On the April 8 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said: "But there was a big report today. It came up on the AP. It was the Drudge headline last night before I went to bed. And I got here in Grand Rapids, and I'm reading the Internet, and 50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes. So we -- and it seems like, at this point, what incentive is there going to be for the people that are paying taxes?"

http://tinyurl.com/yd567c3

So which is it? Were taxed too much, or were not taxing enough? You can't have it both ways.

.

.

Busted for watching FOX NEWS !!

 

Hannity, April 8: "50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes." On the April 8 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said: "But there was a big report today. It came up on the AP. It was the Drudge headline last night before I went to bed. And I got here in Grand Rapids, and I'm reading the Internet, and 50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes. So we -- and it seems like, at this point, what incentive is there going to be for the people that are paying taxes?"

http://tinyurl.com/yd567c3

No, I didn't see that and I don't watch Hannity. He's an idiot who couldn't have an original thought if his life depended on it.

I heard the number was 51%, I must have heard wrong. (unless that's the difference between, people and households)

That said, even if it is now 47%, thats up 9% just since 2007, when it was 38%. (estimate from tax policy center)

My point is, IMO, everybody should have paid some federal income tax, however so small an amount, and nobody should profit, or get back more than they paid in.

Since there is no medicare/medicaid or social security funds put away for future liabilities I would say seperating the different federal taxes is a bit of a fiction. Nearly everyone pays federal taxes.

Our taxes are not that high right now. Our children and grandchildren are the ones getting fucked.

My point is, IMO, everybody should have paid some federal income tax, however so small an amount, and nobody should profit, or get back more than they paid in.

So now your against income tax returns too? Child tax credits, earned income credits, new house credits, etc, etc... and soon health insurance credits are all part of that "getting back more then you paid in" part.

So what exactly do you think is happening to that money that people are getting back, and who do you think it is going to? Hint... YOU are more then likely one of those recipients.

But, if your tired of people getting back more then they pay in, then simply quit taking all those extra credits on your w-2 form next time you file... ONLY YOU can prevent socialism...even if you don't wanna confess to being a socialist.

.

.

So now your against income tax returns too? Child tax credits, earned income credits, new house credits, etc, etc... and soon health insurance credits are all part of that "getting back more then you paid in" part.

 

So what exactly do you think is happening to that money that people are getting back, and who do you think it is going to? Hint... YOU are more then likely one of those recipients.

 

But, if your tired of people getting back more then they pay in, then simply quit taking all those extra credits on your w-2 form next time you file... ONLY YOU can prevent socialism...even if you don't wanna confess to being a socialist.

.

.

You missed the point once again. No, I'm not against any of that as long as what you get back, doesn't end up being more than what you paid in. I don't care how rich or poor you are, you should have a vested interest.

And no, I have never, got more back from the government than I have paid in. I am a life long positive contributor. Anyone who isn't, is a welfare recipient which is what the "soon to be health insurance credit" class will be. Hence the government takeover of health care. I really don't know why you don't like the bill. It's single payer hidden by insurance companies collecting money for the government welfare state.

[attach=full]2714[/attach]

And no, I have never, got more back from the government than I have paid in.

And what exactly is wrong with giving back more then what people have paid in, and giving it to the lower income types?

I mean, what are THEY gonna do with that Earned Income Credit bonus they get for taking care of their family at a substantially lower wage then others?

EIC (YOU KNOW, Credit's for earning income and raising a family) is getting back more then you paid in, the very thing you disapprove of, yet it puts money in the pocket of the living paycheck to paycheck crowd so they can go out and buy that new big screen, or that new x-box for the kids, pay down some of that debt, stimulate the economy instead of just squeeking by off the basics, they put some extra cash back into the capitalist system, and every damn bit of it is socialism. Taking from the have's and giving it to the have nots.

I look at it this way. Let's say you only make $20,000 or maybe $25k a year, you got 2 kids and a wife, you make it on your own, you pay your taxes, and come tax season, you get a bonus from the government in addition to what you make in wages because you are getting back more then you paid in on taxes, simply because you have a child or 2.

So basically, your saying a person in that scenario... and there are MILLIONS of them... should not get that kind of income boostr stimulus every year. Do I have that correct?

.

.

Not ever? Yeah, I'd like to see a PDF copy of your income tax returns to prove that one.

 

And what exactly is wrong with giving back more then what people have paid in, and giving it to the lower income types?

 

I mean, what are THEY gonna do with that Earned Income Credit bonus they get for taking care of their family at a substantially lower wage then others?

 

EIC (YOU KNOW, Credit's for earning income and raising a family) is getting back more then you paid in, the very thing you disapprove of, yet it puts money in the pocket of the living paycheck to paycheck crowd so they can go out and buy that new big screen, or that new x-box for the kids, pay down some of that debt, stimulate the economy instead of just squeeking by off the basics, they put some extra cash back into the capitalist system, and every damn bit of it is socialism. Taking from the have's and giving it to the have nots.

 

I look at it this way. Let's say you only make $20,000 or maybe $25k a year, you got 2 kids and a wife, you make it on your own, you pay your taxes, and come tax season, you get a bonus from the government in addition to what you make in wages because you are getting back more then you paid in on taxes, simply because you have a child or 2.

 

So basically, your saying a person in that scenario... and there are MILLIONS of them... should not get that kind of income boostr stimulus every year. Do I have that correct?

.

.

Yes. Never in my life have I not paid in more to the government than I received back in a return.

What's wrong with it is, it shouldn't be called EIC, it should be called welfare and it obviously means those who get back more than they pay in, are irresponsible sponges who shouldn't be breeding if they can't pay for their brood.

History has proven it just gives legitimacy to welfare queens and generational social parasites.

I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ~ Benjamin Franklin

There is a class system in the US and welfare and social programs do noting but make sure there is a constant poor who rely on the government.

Now who says they can't pay for their brood? Last I checked, people on welfare don't file tax returns, thus do not get EIC. The credit goes to people who work, support a family, probably buy their own insurance, probably have a home mortgage, and your calling them welfare queens? Poor?

That's hilarious. Last I knew of, the income guidelines go up to like $34,000 or something (I wouldn't know for sure, I don't qualify either, I make too much), and people are credited up to 2 kids whether married or single. Those are your welfare queens?

Yeah, you go right ahead and keep on campaigning for people to end the tax credits they get. I have no problem with it personally because it wouldn't apply to me, but it would be funny as hell watching Republicans (not idiotic tea baggers) all for giving up their socialism.

Just as funny as watching Republicans say "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE".

.

.

Now who says they can't pay for their brood? Last I checked, people on welfare don't file tax returns, thus do not get EIC. The credit goes to people who work, support a family, probably buy their own insurance, probably have a home mortgage, and your calling them welfare queens? Poor?

 

That's hilarious. Last I knew of, the income guidelines go up to like $34,000 or something (I wouldn't know for sure, I don't qualify either, I make too much), and people are credited up to 2 kids whether married or single. Those are your welfare queens?

 

Yeah, you go right ahead and keep on campaigning for people to end the tax credits they get. I have no problem with it personally because it wouldn't apply to me, but it would be funny as hell watching Republicans (not idiotic tea baggers) all for giving up their socialism.

 

Just as funny as watching Republicans say "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE".

.

.

Try to justify it any way you want. If you get back more than you pay in, it isn't "earned", It's welfare, and if a person is getting said welfare, they obviously can't support themselves and their brood or are just another parasite sucking on the government teet.

I have not received a refund on my income tax since 1997. I do not believe in giving the government a loan on money that I earn until they come knocking. Let the little children, welfare queens, and other parasites wait a while before my wealth is redistributed.

If my business continues to profit, I might be kicked up to higher tax bracket. If I make $250K this year I will be a criminal.