Posted on 03/27/2010 1:26:04 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5739.ZO.html
Link to Patient Protection Affordable Care Act(PPACA):
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
Congressional Findings are at pages 320-24. The Mandate itself is at pages 324-5.
It would be interesting to hear what Robert Bork has to say on this issue. Has he made any statements?
How long will this take to get to the Supreme Court?
I would love to hear Bork’s take on it.
Would a VERY peaceful, silent prayer vigil around the S.P. while they are hearing our case help? VERY SILENT AND VERY PEACEFUL, with candles maybe. Not one person speak or utter one word, no signs,no buttons or clothing that spoke to a cause or organization. Complete silence.
Do not even talk with the MEDIA, no matter what source they are. Silence and prayer.
Now if Billy Graham wants to come and speak to us and hold this prayer vigil, he may speak and talk with the media if he wishes. fine with me.
bookmark
I believe that the commerce clause cannot be invoked here to justify 0bamacare. All the commerce clause cases involved a commodity and a health insurance policy is not a commodity it is a contract that only has value between the parties to the agreement.
Bur what about the tax argument? The mandate is not an income tax but, I have seen it described as a capitation tax-a tax on the whole person. Apparently, a capitation tax is to be apportioned among the states on the basis of census population.
I wonder if anyone has any further specific knowledge on this subject.
The Constitution (ARTICLE I) forbids a capitation inless it applies equally to everyone in the Census. Obamacare’s mandate is a penalty, which only applies to those who do not comply with the mandate and even exempts some of those who are incarcerated or who cannot afford it. It is not a constitutionally permissible capitation. See below:
“No Capitation, [or other direct,] Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
COMMENTARY:
A capitation is a tax collected equally from everyone. It is also called a head tax or poll tax. The Supreme Court held that this section prohibits an income tax, but the 16th Amendment set aside the effect of the court’s decision.
The Amish and Muslims are exempted from the mandates. Is that a violation of separation of church and state. The state is picking two religions over the beliefs of the others. It looks like to me an establishment of a religion. Their conscious clause is intake but not for pro-life believers.
I would think that the 14 amendment would allow all Americans equal standing in claiming a religious exemption. Next week, I’m going to request that my congressman (Sensenbrenner-R) provide me with information specifically on obtaining an exemption and the most effective strategies to follow. Perhaps several conservatives sitting in congress can pool resources and make this information available to the public. At least a flood of requests would slow down the IRS or government agency charged in processing these requests.
Huh?? What happened to equal treatment under the law? I thought that was the foundational principle of this country.
It’s real simple. This bill asserts federal government OWNERSHIP over the individual citizen.
On what basis did slave owners assert the power to force slaves to work, against their will? Answer: OWNERSHIP. They had to assert legal ownership over the slave, in order to compel them.
Likewise, as a free man, no one can compel me to purchase a product or participate in any particular commerce, absent a claim of some form of ownership over me. Otherwise, I am free to sit in the park and do nothing.
The government says, you must purchase health care. I say, no I don’t, because I am a free citizen in a free country. They say, but you have to, we passed a law. I say, no, I am free, have committed no crime, and nobody can force me to do things against my will. Eventually, they have to say, well, no, you are not free. We have taken that freedom and you must comply. At that point, how am I not in a position of involuntary servitude?
It’s real simple. This bill asserts federal government OWNERSHIP over the individual citizen.
On what basis did slave owners assert the power to force slaves to work, against their will? Answer: OWNERSHIP. They had to assert legal ownership over the slave, in order to compel them.
Likewise, as a free man, no one can compel me to purchase a product or participate in any particular commerce, absent a claim of some form of ownership over me. Otherwise, I am free to sit in the park and do nothing.
The government says, you must purchase health care. I say, no I don’t, because I am a free citizen in a free country. They say, but you have to, we passed a law. I say, no, I am free, have committed no crime, and nobody can force me to do things against my will. Eventually, they have to say, well, no, you are not free. We have taken that freedom and you must comply. At that point, how am I not in a position of involuntary servitude?
ping
ping...
“Moreover, unlike the recent decisions (Lopez, Morrison and Gonzales), which were all 5-4 decisions, this case was a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg in 2000. It is Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), linked in the first comment below this post.”
Bookmark ping.
Here’s my take: These suits put the Democrats at a big political disadvantage because they are left with two choices as their response to them. They can either watch as these suits make their way through the courts and make drive the news cycle ( whether or not the Democrat controlled media likes it) and in doing so serve as daily reminders of what a threat to liberty the bill is OR they can roll the dice and try to push this straight up to the Supreme Court and risk losing everything just before Election Day.
Either way we win. This will NOT be easy but we have fine minds on our side and a faith in God’s favorable view of a free America.
“they can roll the dice and try to push this straight up to the Supreme Court and risk losing everything just before Election Day.”
I really think there are five solid votes on the Court to invalidate this (Kennedy and the four conservatives). Stevens is pretty reliable on Commerce Clause cases, so he would be the sixth if he is still there. I had thought Breyer might be solid on this, but I just saw him in a debate with Scalia and he kept talking about the Judge’s role in determining the purpose of the constitution, based on the values of the time, which made me less sanguine about him. I also remembered he was a staffer for Teddy Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to going on the Appeals court. And Kennedy’s pet issue was nationalized health care. This case will be a real test of Breyer’s intellectual integrity. Ginsburg and Sotomayor are wild cards, but I would tend to see it as 6-3 or 5-3. And if they are intellectually honest, it could be 9-0.
Finally, we are going to be hearing from the MSM that to strike the mandate down would be a stunning example of judicial activism. Not true. Striking it down would be protecting the rights of the people from an abuse of power by Congress through their attempted transmogrification of the Commerce Clause. Striking it down would vindicate the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights as well.
Failing to strike it down would be the STUNNING ACT OF JUDICIAL INACTIVISM, a dereliction of the Court’s duty to protect the people from a Congress which exceeds the powers granted it by the Constitution. It would represent judicial activism by inaction.
Since the Court was willing to strike down the lion’s share of McCain Feingold, which only LIMITED (but by no means eliminated) political speech in violation of the First Amendment, I believe the Court would be inclined to strike down the Mandate in ObamaCare, which not only limits but ELIMINATES the freedom not only to engage in commerce (which has existed since the founding of the Republic and before) but NOT TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE. Congress does so by misconstruing its authority under the commerce clause, believing that the power to “regulate”, which always presupposes an activity to regulate, extends to inactivity and that one who is doing nothing is nevertheless engaging in commerce. I do not believe that the Court can possibly be intellectually dishonest enough to do otherwise. In fact, I think the Justices who, on policy grounds, favor National Health Care will have to admit that it should have been enacted via a public option and financed via the income tax. And people should always have been free to opt our of it.
Had they done it this way, it would have been constitutional, and the Government could have made the public option so attractive that they would have eventually driven the private insurance companies out of the field, achieving their goal of a single payer system. Instead, they were forced to choose this bastardized version, an unprecedented individual government mandate married to private insurance, which is going to run afoul of the Commerce Clause.
This is pretty arcane stuff, but I thought I would ping you in case you know anyone who is interested in some of the Constitutional issues surrounding Obamacare. Post 18 is a little easier to get through than the main article.
Very nicely summarized. As it is Obmacare is an economic time bomb. Even worse with the individual mandate stricken. Will the remedy be the whole bill tossed?
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.