Posted on 12/13/2010 1:15:06 PM PST by pissant
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement after a federal judge ruled that the individual mandate in President Obama's health care takeover bill "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
"Today's decision makes it clear that President Obama and Democrats overreached and violated the Constitution in their rush to pass a federal takeover of our health care system. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made a compelling case that Obamacare violated the constitutional rights of Americans by forcing them into a government program against their will.
"The Constitution neither grants Congress nor the President the power to compel every American to buy government-approved health insurance. The unconstitutional individual mandate is the centerpiece of the health care takeover and today's ruling should signal the beginning of the end for Obamacare. Congress must listen to the American people and fully repeal Obamacare immediately. Then we can move to real solutions that make health care more affordable and increase choices that keep patients in control over their own care."
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
We’ve already had that case fought in the Supreme Court and FDR insisted that SSI was NOT insurance, that it was a welfare program and that payments made by citizens to SSI were taxes, not insurance premiums. FDR won. He had his administration make this arguement to the Court while at the SAME time he was selling SSI to the public as old age insurance!I'm surprised Odufus and Piglosi didn't hit on this formula for their MengeleCare.
Now that Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional; how about social security.
Get it ruled unconsitutional and give me back every red cent that I’ve ever had taken from my paychecks to fund the damn thing.
A bit different than forcing people to buy a product.
Not much, but it is different.
You should have learned that back in grade-school.
Or did your Marxist education ever teach you that?
State Courts have very little say in this matter.
Seniority be damned, I am not happy having a whiny, pouting crybaby as our next Speaker.
Is Boehner really the best the Republicans can come up with?
S/B lower courts in several other states...
So, does that mean it is all thrown out?
In many earlier discussions it was noted that a provision of the law says it must all be declared or none or some such
On November 23, 1921 President Warren Gamaliel Harding signed the Sheppard-Towner maternity and Infancy Protection Act of 1921. It was ruled Unconstitutional in the US Supreme Court on May 15, 1922, it took until 1929 to completely defund it.
A bit of history on the Sheppard-towner Act came about by the following (in brief) Instrumental in passage of the federal grants to states for maternal and infant medical care to curb the maternal and infant mortality rate in the US. The people whom desired this to be passed were Julia Lathrop, Chief of the Childrens Bureau. Miss Lathrop learned of the plight of woman’s health and so forth from working in the slums of Chicago ( Notice the similiarities - another Community Organizer from Chicago).
The bill had the support of Progressives and the following organizations American Child Heygiene Association, National Conference of Catholic Charities, General federation of Womens Clubs, The National Women’s Christian Temeprance Union, The Continental Congress of the daughters of the American Revolution, the Women’s National republican Executive Committee and the National democratic Committee. It was opposed by the Medical reference Bureau, American Medical Liberty League, The American Medical Association. Warren G. Harding Republican campained on the this right for women., notice this was at the time of Womens Suffrage Movement and the Peak of Progressivism in the US.
In 1927, 45 States and the Territory of Hawaii accepte d the Provisions of the Bill - the holdouts were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Illinois.
The constitutionality of the Sheppard Towner Act was challenged in the courts in Massachusetts chiefly on the ground of federal invasion of the powers and rights of the states The AG of the state of Massachusetts in his brief before the Supreme Court in 1922 :
“so called “Federal Aid” legislation by Congress, by which appropriations are made by Congress for local and not national purposes, to States which accept the federal grants, has been found to be an effective way to induce States to yield a portion of their sovereign rights, that bills of a similar nature calling for expenditures of immense sums of money ... are now pending or proposed, and that unless checked by this Court on the ground of unconstitutionality no limit can be foreseen to the amounts which may thus be expended for matters of localo concern, resulting in the establishment of large federal bureaus with many officers for the performance of duties outside the purview of the Constitution.” (Brief for plaintiff, No 24 Commonewealth of Massachusetts, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1922 You can read the information yourself The Sheppard-Towner Era: A Prototype case Study in the Federal - State Relationships by Edward R. Schlesinger
I am not making this up the Sheppard Towner Act for the Promotion of the Welfare of maternity and Infancy was in effect for the US from May 1922 to June 1929 when it was defunded grants in aid were 7 million for 45 states and the Territory of Hawaii, (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois refused the grants)
Congress has the power to tax. You should have learned that back in grade-school.
No, it will take affirmative acts of Congress to kill it all off.
SS is just a feel-good name applied to a tax.
Semantics.
The government could, at it’s sole discretion, terminate all SS recipients checks and keep the tax, and it would not be unconstitutional................although it would be suicidal...............
If the government orders you to buy a wig, is that a “tax”?
If the government orders you to buy a garbage disposer, is that “tax”?
“It seems the whole scheme falls apart without the ability to coerce people to buy any insurance.”
Another poster points out there is no severance clause. This could take down the entire bill.
The Supreme Court actually rejected the challenge to Sheppard-Towner in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).
Congress created a tax deduction for mortgage interest, so that people who don't buy a house pay more tax. Think about it.
Unconstitutional. Period.
Yeah, and turn it around for the rats: if the govt. orders you to buy a firearm to protect your family, is that a tax?
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.