Is it constitutional for Congress to mandate that citizens buy insurance?
Liberals like to claim they are the keepers of the Constitution, but everyone know they think it's a "living document".
Please describe where surrounded by the Constitution the federal gov't has any business in form care. "General welfare" refers to the United States, not the health of it's citizens !
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/n…
Answers:
No it is not ! FDR had to disguise the fact that Social Security be a tax by arguing to the supreme court that it was "suggested insurance and entirely voluntary " . In effect FDR lied
You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my vanished hand does. I'm perfectly liable to mislead and tell untruths...FDR, May 1941 (Morgan p 550)
If you consider the original constitution and the bill of rights, then no. You cannot force individuals to purchase something. You can lawfully force someone to pay a export tax or fine, but you can't legally enforce consumerism. They can't even get away near that legally over car insurance. States can one and only mandate that you have insurance OR be financially responsible in instruct to operate a motor vehicle. In other words, as long as you can show that you have a certain amount contained by a savings account, you are not required to take auto insurance. If you don't want to operate a motor vehicle, the state doesn't require you to buy insurance just in luggage you have an accident, it assumes you are intelligent ample to understand the consequences if you operate without insurance.
IF the management would do what it is supposed to do and protect this great nation and let it's people appropriate care of themselves life would be greatly better .. What i don't understand is the rank and folder liberal .. Like they will get anything out of this legislation .. They will suffer with the rest of us and the with the sole purpose difference being is they don't see it coming like we do..Hey libs you will be enslaved next to the conservatives believe it or not by these laws they are proposing to put in goings-on..
I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where on earth it grants power to force people to purchase a product. I also don't know of any striker Supreme Court decisions that upheld forcing people to purchase something.
I individually hope that, if ObamaCare passes, the conservative and libertarian groups opposing it move about to the Supreme Court to challenge its constitutionality. My guess is that the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, provided that the current 9 justices are still there (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy person the 5 to rule against ObamaCare).
Just read any Liberal quiz on YA, or even there TV pundits they use 1 word which says it adjectives "CAUSE", were just against the "CAUSE". They don't diligence what the constitution says because the only item they care about is "THE CAUSE". Not adjectives Dems, but many on the far Left especially are Socialists, Marxists & even Communists, they believe in Redistribution of lavishness, if your a business owner you will pay more in taxes to trade name things fair for the poor working class.
Class Warfare, they destroyed Russia, Vietnam, North Korea, China, any Middle eastern country, look at Africa except for South Africa which is ruled under England, they live surrounded by garbage & thats where they want to filch us under the Obama administration, its single fair in here eyes if we are as pathetic and awful as those places.
Prove me wrong Left wing loons.
They will pilfer the right of "regulating commerce" and twist it into something that says they can "force" Americans to buy a product or service.
The Democrats see the Constitution not as a model of how our Government should be run, but as an stumbling block to their agenda.
So Don't. Keep what you get...No one is forcing you to change your coverage. However, should you lose your coverage, DON'T buy into ours. Wait until you need coverage, wage the fine which will be about equal to a years coverage, and get better. You family just don't get it. It's not more or less you, it's about LIFE ! ! !
After the Braq revisions to our constitution--taken from his homeland's one--Kenya--our Constitution will allow such changes to be Constitutional.
Absolutely YES, Neocon. If you don't resembling it leave.
Yes.
It has already be tested in the courts when Social Security and Medicare were created.
Perhaps you hold heard of them?
Let's look at one of the judgements:
Congress may spend money in aid of the "nonspecific welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have be great statesmen in our history who have stood for other view. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocate by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not be lacking in adherent. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between exceptional and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula surrounded by advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra surrounded by 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 is not an exercise of judgment. This is in a minute familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we instinctively require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation crash down within the wide stock of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were rigid or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day next to the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.
--
So what own we learned? The first case offensive the authority of Congress to impose a tax to create a program to provide for the General Welfare go all the way pay for to a case where Madison challenge legislation backed by Alexander Hamilton with Hamilton prevailing citing Article I, paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It has since been tested abundant times, but the cases that most parallel present legislation involve challenged by the states to Social Security, Unemployment benefits, and Medicare, which also upheld Article I, section 8 more than 72 years ago.
It is settled ruling, and as such won't even make it out of the lower federal courts.
The only grounds for insulting such a law would be if it were arbitrary or too specific, and thus didn't provide for the General Welfare.
No it is not. The income import tax and social security are unconstitutional too. The government hasn't care about the document for decades.
i can only beleive what fox word tell me to believe Source(s): fox news
No it doesn't
Congress's powers are enumerated. Mandating health insurance is not in the enumerate of enumerated powers. Liberal ideology is going to destroy the country
"Congress has not unlimted powers to provide for the standard welfare but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
That SHOULD pretty much clear things up, but we all know how retarded liberals are
Related Questions:
Please describe where surrounded by the Constitution the federal gov't has any business in form care. "General welfare" refers to the United States, not the health of it's citizens !
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/n…
Answers:
No it is not ! FDR had to disguise the fact that Social Security be a tax by arguing to the supreme court that it was "suggested insurance and entirely voluntary " . In effect FDR lied
You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my vanished hand does. I'm perfectly liable to mislead and tell untruths...FDR, May 1941 (Morgan p 550)
If you consider the original constitution and the bill of rights, then no. You cannot force individuals to purchase something. You can lawfully force someone to pay a export tax or fine, but you can't legally enforce consumerism. They can't even get away near that legally over car insurance. States can one and only mandate that you have insurance OR be financially responsible in instruct to operate a motor vehicle. In other words, as long as you can show that you have a certain amount contained by a savings account, you are not required to take auto insurance. If you don't want to operate a motor vehicle, the state doesn't require you to buy insurance just in luggage you have an accident, it assumes you are intelligent ample to understand the consequences if you operate without insurance.
IF the management would do what it is supposed to do and protect this great nation and let it's people appropriate care of themselves life would be greatly better .. What i don't understand is the rank and folder liberal .. Like they will get anything out of this legislation .. They will suffer with the rest of us and the with the sole purpose difference being is they don't see it coming like we do..Hey libs you will be enslaved next to the conservatives believe it or not by these laws they are proposing to put in goings-on..
I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where on earth it grants power to force people to purchase a product. I also don't know of any striker Supreme Court decisions that upheld forcing people to purchase something.
I individually hope that, if ObamaCare passes, the conservative and libertarian groups opposing it move about to the Supreme Court to challenge its constitutionality. My guess is that the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, provided that the current 9 justices are still there (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy person the 5 to rule against ObamaCare).
Just read any Liberal quiz on YA, or even there TV pundits they use 1 word which says it adjectives "CAUSE", were just against the "CAUSE". They don't diligence what the constitution says because the only item they care about is "THE CAUSE". Not adjectives Dems, but many on the far Left especially are Socialists, Marxists & even Communists, they believe in Redistribution of lavishness, if your a business owner you will pay more in taxes to trade name things fair for the poor working class.
Class Warfare, they destroyed Russia, Vietnam, North Korea, China, any Middle eastern country, look at Africa except for South Africa which is ruled under England, they live surrounded by garbage & thats where they want to filch us under the Obama administration, its single fair in here eyes if we are as pathetic and awful as those places.
Prove me wrong Left wing loons.
They will pilfer the right of "regulating commerce" and twist it into something that says they can "force" Americans to buy a product or service.
The Democrats see the Constitution not as a model of how our Government should be run, but as an stumbling block to their agenda.
So Don't. Keep what you get...No one is forcing you to change your coverage. However, should you lose your coverage, DON'T buy into ours. Wait until you need coverage, wage the fine which will be about equal to a years coverage, and get better. You family just don't get it. It's not more or less you, it's about LIFE ! ! !
After the Braq revisions to our constitution--taken from his homeland's one--Kenya--our Constitution will allow such changes to be Constitutional.
Absolutely YES, Neocon. If you don't resembling it leave.
Yes.
It has already be tested in the courts when Social Security and Medicare were created.
Perhaps you hold heard of them?
Let's look at one of the judgements:
Congress may spend money in aid of the "nonspecific welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have be great statesmen in our history who have stood for other view. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocate by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not be lacking in adherent. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between exceptional and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula surrounded by advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra surrounded by 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 is not an exercise of judgment. This is in a minute familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we instinctively require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation crash down within the wide stock of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were rigid or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day next to the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.
--
So what own we learned? The first case offensive the authority of Congress to impose a tax to create a program to provide for the General Welfare go all the way pay for to a case where Madison challenge legislation backed by Alexander Hamilton with Hamilton prevailing citing Article I, paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It has since been tested abundant times, but the cases that most parallel present legislation involve challenged by the states to Social Security, Unemployment benefits, and Medicare, which also upheld Article I, section 8 more than 72 years ago.
It is settled ruling, and as such won't even make it out of the lower federal courts.
The only grounds for insulting such a law would be if it were arbitrary or too specific, and thus didn't provide for the General Welfare.
No it is not. The income import tax and social security are unconstitutional too. The government hasn't care about the document for decades.
i can only beleive what fox word tell me to believe Source(s): fox news
No it doesn't
Congress's powers are enumerated. Mandating health insurance is not in the enumerate of enumerated powers. Liberal ideology is going to destroy the country
"Congress has not unlimted powers to provide for the standard welfare but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
That SHOULD pretty much clear things up, but we all know how retarded liberals are
Related Questions: