Obamacare mandate will stand under taxing power

Unfortunately, despicably, yes. I don't get to decide constitutional matters, the Supreme Court does. Just because it's the law of the land doesn't mean it's my personal ethic.

 

Yes it does. You cannot have it both ways. Either you get over it and accept their judgment as you have admitted or you do not. I choose not to accept their decision, you do. Abortion is not constitutional and neither is the health care law even though you side with the liberals and the unjust.. Pleased tell me what part of the constitution this is in agreement with.

 

I don't get to decide constitutional matters, the Supreme Court does.

 

What amendment proves this is constitutional?

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare and abortion is constitutional. If you don't like it, take it up with them.

 

What amendment proves this is constitutional?

 

Google it.

 

How do you Google something that does not exist? The 10th amendment makes the law unconstitutional.

 

The federal government hasn't the authority to take over healthcare. 10th amendment.

Direct taxes are unconstitutional.

Article 1 Section 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The mandate is involuntary servitude to insurance companies and big banks.

13th amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Article 1 section 8

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

In other words laws passed to benefit insurance companies and big banks are unconstitutional.

The states and the people have the final say.

I heard an 11 year old girl who "claimed" not to have a Harvard law degree explaining why this tax is unconstitutional on the radio today. Even children understand the concept of constitutionality better than our "leaders" and "experts".

 

The reason abortion is constitutional is because there is not a legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being. If the Congress would find that a fetus is a person, then to commit abortion would be murder legally according to the Constitution.

 

The Roe majority ruling of 1973 holds that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life, but that this does not become a "compelling" state interest--overriding the woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, and her subsequent right to terminate her pregnancy--until the point of viability, then assessed at 24 weeks. The Court did not state that viability is or is not when a fetus becomes a person; just that this is the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm

 

Back on the OP topic, please. If you want to discuss abortion, please start another thread.

Thanks.
LE
Moderator

 

Exactly!

But if the bleeding heart government jumped on Lasik surgery from the start, demanding that it be tax-subsidized so that it can be provided "for free," the cost of it for taxpayers would have increased rather than decreased. Its technological progress would have been much slower if at all. If there were any proposal for improvement, the government would consult a "consensus" of scientists (representing firms lobbying for the cake). Then, that solution would get all the government grant money, stifling competition. Any other solution would be attacked the way "alternative medicine" is. Alternative, cost-effective solutions would not be able to compete against the tax-funded monopoly because they would have to compete against a very expensive "free" that they already have to pay for themselves. Also, it would not be out of place for the government to impose heavy regulations on alternatives that would stifle competition and keep their prices unnecessarily high.

It would be really, really nice if knee-jerk emotional people would understand what nineteenth century French economist Fredric Bastiat referred to as "the seen and the unseen," instead of just jumping on any proposal for government control and redistribution to promote "social justice." The "unseen" is what most people do not understand, and when well-meaning legislation is passed with the intention of helping the less fortunate, it ultimately hurts them.
It hurts them because it provides the incentive to destroy the family unit.
It hurts them because it deprives them of the opportunity of low-cost care that would be available if the free market were allowed to function.
It hurts them because the regulations overburden small, competitive providers; prevents them from expanding; and squelches startups. It protects the big dogs from competition, allowing them to maintain enriching contracts with the government at taxpayer expense.

 

And some of the Founding Fathers (e.g. Jefferson and Madison) verbalized that the question of constitutionality cannot essentially stop at the Supreme Court. They reasoned that the checks and balances of the three branches of the federal government were inherently limited because the federal government itself needed to be checked. As we all know, SC justices are certainly not impartial, and wings of the same beast can share common interests. Thus, the clash of individual states and the federal government can be beneficial to protect liberty and should be allowed to happen.

An example of competing government and state rights over money is that the federal government has the right to "coin" money and "regulate the value thereof." States are not allowed to issue "bills of credit" and can only issue money from gold and silver. In essence, the federal Congress can create "fiat" money, but the states can also issue real money--gold and silver coins--that would put restraint on the ability of the federal government to inflate the currency. We can easily see what has happened to this process with the limited checks and balances of the same beast of the federal government in not only delegating the right and duty to issue money to the Federal Reserve banking cartel, but also passing legal tender laws prohibiting any competition of competing money against Federal Reserve notes. Indeed, the Supreme Court simply cannot be the final arbiter of what is truly constitutional, as language that is still in the Constitution regarding both federal (Congress) and state rights concerning issuing money is simply ignored and flies in the face of the obvious original intent of many of the Founding Fathers who saw firsthand the effects of the inflated Continental currency.


Read Thomas Woods, Jr's excellent treatise Nullification or see his brief explanations at http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

 

The Supreme Court in its ruling says that Obamacare is unconstitutional unless the requirement to get health care or pay the penalty, is considered a tax. So unless it is called a tax, it is unconstitutional.

The Democrats are saying that Obamacare is not a tax, but a penalty. Therefore the Democrats are saying that Obamacare is unconstitutional since they say it is not a tax.

Since the Democrats are saying, in effect, it is not a tax and therefore unconstitutional (as declared by the Supreme Court), why don't they support repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something that is constitutional?

 

Because they hate the constitution as do the republicans. It puts limits on their power and authority.

 

Agreed. Only a few who were elected in 2010 as Tea Party Candidates seem to be holding strong. The rest (career politicians) from both parties have sold us out.

 

Ponco and Ladyeagle you are both correct. Both parties have sold us down the drain and the chances of regaining what has been taken from us is slim to none. The flooding of illegals into this nation and the government seeking to grant them amnesty is just one more step towards making this nation into a dictatorial style government.Righht now they are flooding the country with illegals as young as 5 and 6 years old crossing the border alone wiht no family and then finding homes for them here with foster parents. Once they have enough to vote their way, The next step will be a government that uses the military to rule the people.

 

A military dictatorship has been in the works for a long time here. The ducks are all in a row now. All the globalists need now is a pretext to step in and take over. A race war would be a nice pretext. That's how the globalists do it in all the other countries we're occupying for them. Divide and conquer. Nothing like a good old fashion sectarian blood letting to get the international community involved in "peacekeeping" missions.

Behold, our saviors in blue helmets cometh.

 

I always thought it unconstitutional to use Federal military to rule

Wasn't it Ike who ordered up federal troops(I believe the 101st Airborne) to escort black students to school in Little Rock, AR??? Back in the early 60's???