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 ...
And Obama's Health Care plan is just feel-good name applied to an expansion of federal regulations and taxes. Congress should repeal it.
Rightly or wrongly, Flemming V. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, said otherwise. Do you think that the Supreme Court is ready to void Social Security?
And you still find the word “Insurance” all over the government’s web site. I rubbed a Lefty’s nose in that last week, after he made a big deal of saying it is not insurance. Yes, we know that, and yes, the government/the Left LIES! to the sheeple, over and over again.
I am a little confused here everything I find states it was ruled Unconstitutional. help me to see what you are seeing. I do not want to steer anyone in the wrong direction. I am a person whom deals with facts and if you see someting that I write is wrong I want to be corrected immediately. thanks, just trying to read what you write too. I am not a person to take offense, just everything i am finding states it was ruled unconstitutional and took until 1929 to defund it in its entirety, 1927 the funding was extended for 2 years for 15 of the states. (If there a problems with grammar, punctauation at times - voice activated software is not the greatest, and sometimes when I double check errors are not evident right away).
Read the decision. The link above goes to it.
Sometimes its difficult to see a “silver lining” to a cloud like “Pass the Bill so we can find out what’s in it”. Which at the time was about the most arrogant assinine thing I had very heard from a politician.
Crooks often over look minor details in their rush.
No. But like the idea of the courts looking at enumerated powers.
Congress created a tax deduction for mortgage interest, so that people who don’t buy a house pay more tax.
Never thought about it that way, but dang if you ain’t right. Don’t tell the dems.
Clearly, social security is not designed as a tax to support the government, thus it does not fall within the congress’ constitutional power to tax.
Having eaten lots of rice dishes all over the globe, I have to ask, “if those things around the edge are not cashews, what are they?”
Arguing with the boss is always dangerous, but here goes:
Federal taxes do not have to be designed to support the government to be Constitutional. Never has.
For example, taxes on imports dating back to the earliest days of our Republic were designed to discourage foreign imports and to encourage domestic manufacturing.
Is using tax penalties to drive individuals into ObamaCare bad policy? Absolutely. Should the courts choose what the policies of government should be? Absolutely not.
Congress made the law, Congress should repeal the law.
Taxes on imports are known as "Duties" and the congress is explicitly empowered to collect them "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," ie, to support the government. Nowhere in the constitution will you find the power to mandate the people to purchase any kind of insurance whether it be health, employment or retirement, etc. Social engineering, spread the wealth around, safety nets, etc, are not enumerated powers of the congress.
Yes, congress should repeal the law. In the meantime, the Supremes should strike it down.
The power to provide for the general Welfare is explicit in the taxing powers delegated to Congress, as you have just quoted. The Constitution provides no power to the federal courts to decide which tax policies advance the common good and which do not. It is the usurpation of legislative functions by the federal judiciary that is unsupported by the language of the Constitution.
"We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional." -- Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)The basis for judicial activism is not found in the Constitution. That is the power that is not enumerated, while the power to provide for the general welfare as part of the taxing powers of Congress is explicitly istated.
Nowhere in the constitution will you find the power to mandate the people to purchase any kind of insurance
"The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law." --Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)If Henry E. Hudson wants to make federal law he should step down from the bench and run for Congress.
Which one is relevant?
Are you a liberal troll or were you just born stupid?
I just advocated the Conservative position. I’m appalled that you’re either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.
The conservative position is Obamacare is unconstitutional You can shove your liberal opinion up your butt!
> “Are you a liberal troll or were you just born stupid?”
.
Or both?
Congress above court rulings? - Insane!
.
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.