Question for Freepers (HCRA Legal Challenges)

Vaniy | 24 MAR 10 | 724th

[butterdezillion]

Unless he/she can count on millions of illegal immigrants being cleared to vote for him/her before the next election...

[Logic n' Reason]

Nothing lights a fire under a politicians bum, like the re-election clock.

Yep....

Of course, I don't expect the actual Atty. Gen. to read my letter. One of his flunkies will do that. And it will go in the file marked "File a Suit". If that pile is bigger than the "Don't file a suit", I'm sure he'll file. He's been pretty much a coward and lapdog to the dem reps and senators here in WI.

He's about as "independent" as a three month old baby.

But...there's always hope.....and it helped me vent my spleen!!!

And....just as an aside....I wonder where all that spleen stuff goes after it's been vented???

[smokingfrog]

Then I propose we pass a flat tax and everyone formerly employed by the IRS will now clean our toilets.

[mlocher]

Thanks. Napolitano is pretty good. But remember, controversy gets you to watch -- so even FNC will get opposing views to stir up the pot a bit. They need viewers to attract advertising.

The courts will not care what Meghan says.

[Hawthorn]

>> Does the bill claim, anywhere within it’s 2700 pages, that the requirement too purchase Health Insurance, is in fact a tax <<

They don’t dare call the penalty a tax, because it would then be a “capitation tax” — which according to Article I of the Constitution must be apportioned among the States in terms of population.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Another reason for hope is the Citizens United v FEC case.

I have heard pundits suggesting that the Supreme Court would not overturn ObamaCare because they would not dare strike down such a large piece of legislation.

But McCain-Feingold was a major, bi-partisan piece of legislation, and the Court has indeed struck down parts of it.

There are four liberals on the Court who will vote for purely ideological reasons.

But the other five justices may well find the ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional. A majority found in US v Lopez that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress power to regulate whether individuals could carry a gun within a certain distance of a school. One can draw a parallel between that and the current situation.

[724th]

And....just as an aside....I wonder where all that spleen stuff goes after it’s been vented???

It travels to the next tax zone. Cap and Trade.

[Hawthorn]

>> Would a poll-tax be constitutional simply because the IRS had oversight and collection responsibility? <<

A federal poll tax would be legal “if and only if” apportioned equally among the States in terms of their populations. It would be irrelevant as to legality whether such a tax should be collected by the IRS, the Weather Bureau, or some other federal agency.

[724th]

True. I slipped up and said Meghan Fox, not Kelly. A minor freudian slip.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Many times it can be seen that the courts duck an issue because they realize the turmoil that a controversial decision will bring.

I don't trust the current court when it comes to crossing Opossum. They continue to avoid the personal records scandal because they are afraid of (1) race riots and (2) being called racist by the MSM.

[farmguy]

Besides, In the state of the union address, Obama put the Supreme Court on notice that they weren’t to interfere with his liberal agenda.

[codercpc]

For Constitutional reasons I hope that the mandate is overturned, but my question is without the mandate this piece of crap is much worse.

The mandate may be the only saving grace. If they deem that all insurances must cover all people regardless of their current health, every one elses insurance rates will go through the roof. If someone can wait until they are diagnosed with cancer before paying a premium (and remember that under the new rules the insurance company can not charge them more) why would anyone buy insurance in the first place.

Again, I am all for these lawsuits, I just hope the end result is not the outcome we all fear.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

If the mandate is thrown out, that helps improve the climate for repeal. It will come down to single payer vs non-single payer. Conservatives and independents will be joined by those democrats not in favor of single-payer.

If the mandate is thrown out before 2012, it will be recognized by a large majority that ObamaCare is unworkable and a major issue in the presidential election will be what to replace ObamaCare with. That will be a good issue for opponents of socialized health care.

[codercpc]

I sure hope your right.....

[mlocher]

I knew what you meant.

[JLLH]

I believe it is described as a penalty or a fine - not a tax.

[avacado]

Thanks for the insight. They did something similar with the unconstitutional social security. I believe they called it an excise tax — which it isn't. FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court so they ruled in his favor.

[Brytani]

Poll taxes are unconstitutional directly in the Constitution (24th Amendment) - my point is simple, just because a “tax” is collected or controlled by the IRS is it automatically constitutional as the thread author seems to be arguing.

[Hawthorn]

>> Poll taxes are unconstitutional directly in the Constitution (24th Amendment) <<

Not exactly. Read the text. Poll taxes are unconstitutional only as a requirement for voting, either in federal or state elections. A federal capitation (or “poll”) tax not related to voting would seem to be completely legal and constitutional, but only as long as it be apportioned equally among the States on the basis of their enumerated populations.

Which brings us back to the subject of the “penalty” for not buying health insurance: The feds can’t call it a “tax” because the amount collected in any State would be determined by the number of residents in that jurisdiction who didn’t buy health insurance, not by that State’s total population.

[DrC]

“FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court so they ruled in his favor.”

Yes, it’s sad how easily they buckled under that threat. Until then, they’d done a creditable job of striking down many of the New Deal programs on constitutional grounds. Had they held firm, we likely wouldn’t be in this mess today.