Notice of Hearing April 14 Health Care Lawsuit

Scribd ^ | 3/29/2010 | WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

[tsomer]

...Having not read the entire bill, I have read that on pages 202 and 203, that for people with ‘inadequate health insurance’ (as in none) that their employers will pay taxes and for those individuals self-employed or not employed, that these individuals will pay an ‘excise tax’.

One thing: the penalty levied against non-compliance can't be an excise tax by definition. It is a fine. An excise tax is imposed on some product made and sold within the country-- an internal customs duty, if you will.

What thing is being taxed? Freedom of choice?

I don't recall, but does the bill use that word, "excise" to describe that penalty?

[Hostage]

Be careful of what is said in public versus what can be said in court.

Rush Limbaugh covered this weeks back in reviewing the history of the court challenge to Social Security in the 1930s.

In public FDR was emphatically defending SS as a small (1% total at the time) retirement savings plan with funds segregated from the general fund. Meanwhile his DOJ lawyers were in court arguning this was a tax that was constitutional under the 16th Amendment.

Let’s keep our eyes open. The democrat socialists and their Harvard law experts have thought through their game plan. No matter what is said in public or even how the bill can be construed, the DOJ lawyers will have the 16th Amendment script ready to play out in court.

[Hostage]

It really doesn’t matter what the reason is, that is the point. The 16th gives Congress power to tax income however defined from any source for any reason without apportionment.

The 16th is a curse and the instrument from which the Left derives its power.

As for the ‘excise’ descriptor, the Bill refers to taxing employers a percentage of gross earnings, like SS it is regressive and can be considered an ‘excise’ tax; ‘excise’ being my description.

[EdReform]

bookmark

[uncommonsense]

Many thanks for posting the text of the article! Seems like the ambiguity of the 6 enumerated federal authorities will be a challenge to bring into context:

"In Federalist Essay No. 41, Madison, in discussing the limited powers delegated to the federal government, stated that they could be reduced to 6 categories of powers:"That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be more conveniently done they may be reduced into the different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers."

I guess the court would have to interpret #4 and the various terms - like "objects" - to have a very narrow purpose.

In No. 41, Madison goes into a lot of detail on military protection and the need to pay for a standing army, so it seems clear that the federal powers of #'s 1 through 6 are relegated to ensuring the smooth interaction between internal and external states, resolving disputes when necessary through regulations or war (e.g. the flow of water between states - not allowing one state to hord; protecting American borders), and paying for the personnel and "objects" necessary to carry out their responsibilities (e.g. building a Naval fleet).

In my copy of the papers, No. 41, page 262, Madison writes about the attack by some against the constitution that it's language gives the federal government unlimited powers, when in fact they are very limited and enumerated:

"It has been urged and echoed that the powers "to lay and collect taxes, duties... to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense or general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."

Boy! Does that ever describe the Rat's process used to jam the HC bill through congress before anyone could gain an understanding of how it changes the meaning, and usurps our constitution!!!

[ForGod'sSake]

Good post.

Not being as good of a student of history as I should be, I only have a basic understanding of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist arguments. I can't say that there were any clear winners or losers in the debate except that the results speak for themselves. The addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was an obvious win for the Anti-Federalists who at first blush appear to have had a better read on human nature. That is, to your point, this new federal government MUST be bound in chains to thwart those who would use its nuanced power by perverting the simple interpretation of the language and and its commonly accepted meaning. Actually worked for a while.

JMO, but probably more than any other single event, the ratification of the 16th Amendment implementing a feral income tax, changed all that. I suppose it once again shows us that, after all the debate, the final product the Framers finally produced was an unmatched and inspired framework for self governance.