CBO: If Democrats Push Socialized Medicine, Get Ready For Rationing

"CBO: If Democrats Push Socialized Medicine, Get Ready For Rationing"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The CBO needs to be required to publicly announce when Democrats make laws and spend tax dollars for things that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, healthcare concerns in this example.

First, consider the following general clarifications of Congress's constitutionally limited powers by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices.

"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.
”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.

Regarding the constitutionality of socialized federal healthcare, CBO should be required to point out that, regardless what the misguided, institutionally indoctrinated Roberts Supreme Court wants everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, the Court wrongly “overlooked” the following about Obamacare imo.

More specifically, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had already clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate, regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare.

"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 [emphases added].” —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.
"Obviously, direct control of medical practice [emphases added] in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.” —Linder v. United States, 1925.
”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.

In other words, if the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress wasn’t always stealing state revenues through unconstitutional taxes, then the states would find the revenues that they need to establish their own individual healthcare programs, depending on what the legal majority voters of each state want.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the federal government.

”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Justice Brandeis later reflected on Bingham's words when Brandeis spoke of the individual states as laboratories of democracy, depending on what legal majority voters of a given state want.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.

The Roberts Court also got the Obamacare individual mandate wrong imo since 19th century justices had also previously clarified that insurance policies are contracts, not commerce, the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) therefore not giving Congress the specific power regulate insurance, regardless if buyer and seller are domiciled in different states.

"Issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. The policies are simple contracts of idemnity against loss by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for a consideration paid by the latter. These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their signature and the transfer of the consideration. Such contracts are not inter-state transactions, though the parties may be domiciled in different States." —Paul v. Virginia, 1868.

In fact, Speaker Pelosi scandalously ignored Rep. Jessie Jackson Jr.'s repeatedly introduced resolution to first successfully petition the states for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution so that Congress could justify establishing Obamacare before irresponsibly ramming unconstitutional Obamacare through the House.

H.J.Res. 30 (108th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality.

The reason that patriots everywhere are now being oppressed under the boots of unconstitutionally big federal government is the following imo.

Regardless that the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority Supreme Court justices had clarified the fed's constitutionally limited powers in United States v. Butler, using inappropriate words like “concept" and “implied,” FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later scandalously initiated the politically correct repeal of the 10th Amendment in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”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.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

And since the time of Wickard, generations of misguided voters have unthinkingly abused their 17A voting power to not only finish off the 10th Amendment, but have also effectively nullified the Constitution’s Article V amendment process by electing corrupt senators who promise constitutionally indefensible federal spending programs to get themselves elected regardless what the states that they're supposed to be representing want.

Finally, the states would be able to afford their own individual social security and retirement programs as the Founding States had intended, if the state ever wised up and put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes.

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.