Posted on 08/13/2010 8:20:41 AM PDT by La Lydia
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's preliminary victory against Obamacare in federal court has put its defenders on notice: They will have to make an affirmative case for the individual mandate -- the notion that government can not only tax your income, but instruct you how to spend what's left -- on the merits. This might prove hard to do. Initially, proponents hung their hat on the Commerce Clause. And it's true that over time the courts have stretched the clause to cover nearly anything Washington has wanted to do. Most notably, it was the justification for the disastrous 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, the Supreme Court said the Constitution permitted punishing a farmer, Roscoe Fillburn, for growing wheat in excess of his quota under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, even though he grew the extra for his own use. Reason? The excess crops indirectly affected the interstate wheat market ...
But the high court has said the elasticity of the clause is not infinite; and there is a difference between regulating an existing activity, and compelling a person to engage in a new activity. Fair-minded defenders of Obamacare admit using the Commerce Clause to justify the latter would represent an unprecedented expansion of federal power.
So in March, the Joint Committee on Taxation hedged the congressional bet by releasing a "technical explanation" of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that made no mention of the Commerce Clause. Rather, it referred to the individual mandate as an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage."...
As the Supreme Court said in 1922....."there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment."...
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.timesdispatch.com ...
It’s still called slavery, which won’t stop Progressive slavers from trying to enforce it.
In serious need of overturnment.
You have hit on an interesting key to what is going on in our country under the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. We are being turned into slaves of our government. Hasta la vista “consent of the governed.”
Insurance is for the poor. If one has enough money, one can self insure against all sorts of risks.
If you can be compelled, on pain of a fine (or imprisonment if you fail to pay the fine, or death if you resist being dragged away to prison) to purchase insurance, then there is literally no limit to what you can be compelled to buy with your post-tax dollars. Next will be a requirement that you have to buy a new GM car every 3 years. What limits are there?
This is the very definition of slavery - forcing another person to work for you. That is the situation that we are in, nothing more, nothing less. If this case loses, I'd like to see 1 million or 5 million people cancel their health insurance and sign a petition that dared Obama to come and arrest them all.
Let’s hope this fecal bill dies a swift and painful death!
Repealing is appealing!
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.