I never thought the courts would agree it is legal for the government to “fine” me for not engaging in commerce, but with Obama-care, they did.
Thanks for replying ro_dreaming.
Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following material concerning Obamacare, you will probably find it interesting.
Regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare, regardless what lawless Obama's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about Obamacare, consider this. The Roberts Court seems to have either overlooked or ignored that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes.
Regarding the Roberts justices bluffing (imo) that the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional for example, consider the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court had clarified that the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers does not include regulating contracts, including insurance contracts, regardless if the parties negotiating the contract are domiciled in different states.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
The remedy to unconstitutional Obamacare …
Patriots are reminded that the 2016 election are arguably not over yet, patriots needing to finish the job that they started by electing Pres. Trump.
More specifically, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriots candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to D.C. on election day.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!