Posted on 03/24/2010 1:52:04 PM PDT by 724th
I have heard many legal scholars, practitioners, and pundits, say that the legal challenges too the Health Care Reform Act, will fail, becuse the bill falls under the perview of the IRS.
My Question is this; Does the bill claim, anywhere within it's 2700 pages, that the requirement too purchase Health Insurance, is in fact a tax. If not, does the IRS have authority, and does the bill then become unconstitutional?
I already Believe the bill is wildly unconstitutional.
You should go read the bill. It’s all there about the IRS and the 2.5% tax if you do not carry health care.
It can’t be a tax. Jug ears told us our taxes would not go up ONE DIME...
Who are the legal scholars? Which practitioners? What news agencies wer reporting this to you?
Are these trusted folks, or MSM props?
wait till you see the value added tax coming down by the end of the year
The fine for not purchasing CAN be considered a tax. But the cost of the purchased product is NOT a tax. Nor is the unfunded mandate imposed upon the states to provide Medicaire.
Falling under IRS purview doesn’t save the legislation from constitutional invalidity.
Whether one calls it a tax or a fine, the federal government does not have the power to impose a penalty on a resident of a state conditioned solely on that person failing to purchase a good or service from another private entity.
There is a canon of legal construction that words in a law (or constitution) shall not be construed as intending to have no meaning at all. If the federal government can impose a penalty on someone solely by reason of that person existing, and failing to purchase a good or service, then the the term “interstate” has no meaning in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
“wait till you see the value added tax coming down by the end of the year”
Inevitable...they can’t get the numbers to foot any other way...soon we will all be just like the cheese eating surrender monkey Frenchmen living on the dole...
Meghan Fox, Andrew Napolitano, and others on Fox.
A tax for “Not doing something”? Using that logic, if they passed a statute that said Washington could “TAX” not going to bed at 10 PM, then such a law would be constitutional.
It obviously depends on the judges who hear it and their philosophy ... and courage to stand by it.
The 7-2 decision against Al Gore in 2000 took that courage. The Supremes could have ducked the case.
Many times it can be seen that the courts duck an issue because they realize the turmoil that a controversial decision will bring.
In this case turmoil is already in play. Do judges now want to become part of it?
It’s a penalty, not a tax, so why should the IRS have any authority? If it’s not in the tax code, the IRS can’t be the one to enforce it, can they?
If this passes Constitutional muster than the 10th Amendment has no meaning whatsoever. The Feds could regulate any aspect of our lives, just by “taxing” our failure to comply.
Thank you for your post. I do not lay claim to being the sharpest tool in the shed. I do however understand reasoned thought. I posted the question, becuse we are all concerned, and reading responses like yours, gives us some reasonable hope.
The Attorney General of WI - tho a rino - is only at the "I'm considering" stage. What he's been doing for the last 12 months is beyond me.
He is up for re-election in 2011; he won his current term 50.1% to 49.1% of the total vote.
If he does not file suit against this monstrosity, I wrote and told him that in 2011, he'll have to return to private practice as he will be thrown out of his cushy office.
Strictly speaking, it is a fixed dollar “penalty” “up to X% of income” whichever is larger. Name a single TAX that takes that structure. In that regard, it is more akin to a penalty/fine than a tax, as taxes are generally viewed as being levied on an entire population or category of goods/services.
But even if courts were to rule it a “tax” rather than a penalty/fine, the mere fact it levies a tax doesn’t make it Constitutional. The tax doesn’t apply to everyone—only to those who don’t do X. Imagine a tax levied only on Blacks. Think that would survive court scrutiny? So I think it makes a difference that the behavior being singled out for punishment is failure to purchase health insurance. As many have noted, that is unprecedented. If the government can force you to buy HI, what’s to stop them from forcing you to buy GM cars etc.?
Bingo. You are the Government's slave.
Nothing lights a fire under a politicians bum, like the re-election clock.
There's no reason in the Constitution that the IRS must be restricted to matters of taxation. If the Congress should task the IRS with conducting the census or managing the national parks, either action might be unwise. But neither would be unconstitutional or prima facie illegal.
Would a poll-tax be constitutional simply because the IRS had oversight and collection responsibility?
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.