The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as Obamacare, was upheld as constitutional by a 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in June 2012, after Chief Justice John Roberts chose to accept the Obama administration’s argument that the law’s individual mandate was permissible under Congress’ constitutional power to tax. (It’s important to point out that the administration ALSO presented a second, completely contrary argument before the court, claiming that the individual mandate was NOT a tax, but could be considered merely a “penalty”.)
I’ve heard that Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee (who I really like) wrote a book entitled “Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Obamacare”. I haven’t read it yet, mostly because I didn’t want it to affect my own response to this ruling. So, while I’m not sure EXACTLY what it says, I’m guessing that it focuses more on politics and the harmful effects of the law (which are obviously worth pointing out, no doubt) than the most crucially important fact of all – that the federal government has absolutely NO constitutional authority whatsoever to have anything at all to do with health care/insurance.
Without a specific constitutional requirement to do something, the federal government is expressly prohibited – by virtue of the lack of that specific requirement – from taking any action. (As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 84, when arguing AGAINST the inclusion of the Bill of Rights: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”) This follows the specific purpose of the constitution: to limit government, in favor of individual liberty. That fundamental truth forms the basis for my own rebuttal to the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts on Obamacare.
The job of SCOTUS is not to “save” acts of Congress, as Roberts so ignorantly claimed as a reason for his ruling, but rather to simply rule on the constitutionality of them. Yes, Congress does indeed have – as our founders intended – a virtually unlimited constitutional authority to tax, via a specifically enumerated power…but those collected tax dollars can ONLY be spent on other specifically enumerated powers. The federal government is only ALLOWED to do those very few things that the constitution specifically REQUIRES it to do…no more, no less.
When I was going through Roberts’ opinion, and typing up my critique of its various parts, I put my responses in ALL CAPS, simply as a good way to visually separate the two. I thought about reformatting my responses for this book, since many people often view using all caps as virtual “shouting”. Well, in the end, I decided that the absolute ignorance contained within Roberts’ opinion is so overwhelming, that the “shouting” in my below evisceration of its most egregious portions is well-deserved indeed.
The full SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare can be found online at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. Please note that I compiled this rebuttal before Obamacare went into effect and could begin doing its REAL (intended) damage.
— “In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.” (Pg. 1)
* WRONG…CONGRESS ENACTED THIS IN ORDER TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF BOTH OF THOSE STATED GOALS. AND THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THAT WAS TO EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET AND TO NATIONALIZE HEALTH CARE. JUST LIKE OBAMA SAID IN HIS 2003 SPEECH TO THE AFL-CIO: “I HAPPEN TO BE A PROPONENT OF A SINGLE-PAYER, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN…BUT…WE MAY NOT GET THERE IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE FIRST WE’VE GOTTA TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE, AND WE’VE GOTTA TAKE BACK THE SENATE, AND WE’VE GOTTA TAKE BACK THE HOUSE.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=fpAyan1fXCE)
— “Another key provision of the Act is the Medicaid expansion. The current Medicaid program offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care.” (Pg. 1)
* HOW INTERESTING THAT THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS, COMPLETE MISSES THE POINT THAT MEDICAID ITSELF IS A WHOLLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM. REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED “AUTHORIZING” IT, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER (BESIDES GENERAL ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS)…AND IF IT’S NOT A SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWER, THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT. PERIOD.
— “The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage.” (Pg. 2)
* AGAIN…WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO PROVIDE ANY FUNDING WHATSOEVER TO COVER STATES’ COSTS FOR HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS? IF IT’S NOT REQUIRED, THEN IT’S NOT ALLOWED.
— “The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act’s other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact.” (Pg. 2)
* YOU’D THINK THESE LEGAL GENIUSES COULD FIGURE THIS CONTRADICTION OUT…HOW COULD THE APPEALS COURT UPHOLD THE EXPANSION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM AS A “VALID” EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’ SPENDING POWER (WHICH, AGAIN, IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, SO IS THEREFORE NOW ALLOWED AT ALL), BUT THEN SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE? THEY’RE BOTH UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND FOR THE SAME REASONS…CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SPEND MONEY ON ANYTHING BESIDES ITS ENUMERATED POWERS, AND DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FORCE ANYONE TO BUY ANYTHING. THE MONEY IS THE PEOPLE’S…WHETHER IT’S STILL IN OUR WALLETS/PURSES/BANK ACCOUNTS OR IN THE FEDERAL TREASURY…AND CONGRESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEND IT, OR FORCE US TO SPEND IT, ON ANYTHING THAT’S NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY-REQUIRED SPENDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.” (Pg. 2)
* SO, BASICALLY, YOU JUST CHOOSE TO USE WHICHEVER LABEL WORKS BEST, IN WHICHEVER SITUATION, TO FURTHER YOUR GOAL OF SAVING THIS DUNG-HEAP OF A LAW. NICE.
— “CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.” (Pg. 2)
* BOOM…DONE. THAT’S ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID HERE. CASE CLOSED. THIS IS A VALID, ACCURATE STATEMENT, AND ONE THAT COULD BE THE ENTIRETY OF THIS RULING. THERE’S NO REASON TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN THIS…EXCEPT MAYBE TO MENTION THAT IT’S ALSO COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE IN GENERAL, SINCE IT’S NOT LISTED AMONG THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated…The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” (Pg. 2-3)
* “INTERSTATE COMMERCE” HERE IS USED TO REFER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING MONEY TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO UNINSURED PEOPLE…WHICH IS, OF COURSE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A WHOLE, SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON HEALTH CARE, AND IS THEREFORE NOT ALLOWED TO.
— “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” (Pg. 3)
* YA THINK?
— “Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.” (Pg. 3)
* WELL, NOT REALLY, SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY… THEREFORE, CONGRESS’ POWERS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE VERY FEW ENUMERATED DUTIES SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OF THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION. CONGRESS CAN ONLY REGULATE WHAT WE DO IN REGARDS TO THEIR FEW ENUMERATED POWERS, WHICH ONLY REALLY COME INTO PLAY WHEN ANY INDIVIDUAL’S EXERCISE OF HIS OWN FREEDOM INFRINGES UPON THE FREEDOM OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL.
— “Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power.” (Pg. 3)
* ONCE AGAIN, THIS COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS CONGRESS HAS NO “GRANTED POWERS” THAT AUTHORIZE IT TO HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
— “Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.” (Pg. 3)
* NEITHER ARE THE ACT’S “OTHER REFORMS” IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTIONAL, REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, AS THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE CONGRESS TO CARRY OUT THOSE “OTHER REFORMS”, SO THEY ARE THEREFORE IMPERMISSIBLE.
— “CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.” (Pg. 3)
* SO, ONCE AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF LABELED THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AS A “PENALTY”, IN THE END YOU JUST WIND UP CALLING IT A TAX IN ORDER TO SAVE THIS WHOLE STUPID LAW.
— “The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”” (Pg. 3)
* NO, ON THE CONTRARY…THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DEFAULT POSITION OF GOVERNMENT IS AN ABSENCE OF POWER. SO, IF CONGRESS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING BY THE CONSTITUTION, THEN IT’S NOT ALLOWED. SEARCHING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO TRY TO EXPAND CONGRESS’ POWER IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND SINCE WHEN DOES ANYONE GET TO PRESENT MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS IN COURT ANYWAY? “IF I CAN’T DO IT THIS WAY, THEN I WANT TO TRY THIS WAY…AND IF THAT DOESN’T WORK, THEN LET’S TRY THIS WAY.” ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
AND YES, CONGRESS HAS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED POWER TO “LAY AND COLLECT TAXES”, BUT *ONLY* TO FUND ITS ENUMERATED POWERS…AND NOTHING IN THIS ACT IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OF CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION, SO NONE OF IT IS REMOTELY ALLOWED.
— “In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.” (Pg. 3)
* SO, NOW GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO TAX NON-ACTIVITY? AGAIN, I REMIND YOU OF THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT) AND THE DEFAULT POSITION OF GOVERNMENT (AN ABSENCE OF POWER)…BOTH OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE CAUSED YOU TO LAUGH THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS RIGHT OUT OF YOUR COURTROOM WHEN THEY TRIED THIS TACK.
— “Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.” (Pg. 3-4)
* THIS IS ONE OF MANY INSTANCES WHERE PRECEDENT IS IRRELEVANT IF IT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION. I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU’D EVEN RELY ON SUCH OBVIOUS NONSENSE. YOU CAN’T “SAVE A STATUTE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALITY”…IT’S EITHER WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT’S ENUMERATED POWERS, OR IT ISN’T (HINT: THIS ONE ISN’T). AND EVEN IF IT’S “FAIRLY POSSIBLE” OR EVEN COMPLETELY POSSIBLE TO INTERPRET THE MANDATE AS IMPOSING SUCH A TAX, THAT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT IF THE TAX IS BEING COLLECTED TO FUND ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST PLACE (HINT: THIS TAX IS).
— “CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.” (Pg. 4)
* ALL WELL AND GOOD…BUT AGAIN, ANY TAXES COLLECTED BY CONGRESS MUST BE USED TO FUND ENUMERATED POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, AND THIS ACT IS WELL BEYOND ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED/ALLOWED POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. AND THAT IS WELL WITHIN THE COURT’S PURVIEW TO RULE ON.
— “None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.” (Pg.4)
* SO, HAVING TO FORFEIT PRIVATE PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR NOT DOING WHAT IT WANTS YOU TO – BY LAW – IS NOT A “NEGATIVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE”? ANY MORON CAN SEE THAT IT PLAINLY IS! WELL, ALMOST ANY MORON CAN, I GUESS.
AND WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS CONGRESS REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO INDUCE THE PURCHASE OF ANYTHING???
— “It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.” (Pg. 4)
* ONCE AGAIN, CONGRESS IS TAXING NON-ACTIVITY. AND SO MUCH FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, SINCE PEOPLE CAN NOW NO LONGER CHOOSE TO GO WITHOUT INSURANCE. WHAT’S NEXT…EVERYONE HAS TO BUY A CAR? FOOD? A GUN? WHERE DOES THIS STOP?
— “A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population.” (Pg. 4)
* THE STATES AREN’T PAYING THE TAX, GENIUS…INDIVIDUALS ARE. AND THIS COURT’S PRECEDENTS ALSO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO ANYTHING IT CAN TO “SAVE STATUTES FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALITY”…SO THIS COURT’S PRECEDENTS ARE OBVIOUSLY FLAWED.
— “CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.” (Pg. 4)
* THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL MEDICAID FUNDING IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN AND OF ITSELF! SO, THE SCENARIO IN WHICH THIS THREAT COULD EVEN BE ALLOWED TO EXIST IS SIMPLY ILLEGAL, AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DEVELOP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
— “The Spending Clause grants Congress the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the…general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1. Congress may use this power to establish cooperative state-federal Spending Clause programs. The legitimacy of Spending Clause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs.” (Pg. 5)
* YOU COULD NOT HAVE MISINTERPRETED THIS ANY WORSE…THE DEBTS TO BE PAID BY CONGRESS ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE IN FULFILLMENT OF THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS. AND “GENERAL WELFARE” MEANS FOR “ALL OF THE CITIZENS EQUALLY”…WHICH MEANS THAT EVERYONE MUST CONTRIBUTE, AND GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE EVERYONE’S LIBERTY EQUALLY. TAKING MONEY BY FORCE FROM SOMEONE WHO’S EARNED IT AND REDISTRIBUTING IT TO OTHERS WHO HAVEN’T VIOLATES THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM THEM. THE SPENDING CLAUSE DOES GIVE CONGRESS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED TAXING POWER, SURE…BUT THE REST OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 ALSO SEVERELY LIMITS CONGRESS’ ABILITY TO SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON ONLY ITS VERY FEW ENUMERATED POWERS. AND THE LEGITIMACY OF SPENDING CLAUSE LEGISLATION DOES NOT DEPEND ON “WHETHER A STATE VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY ACCEPTS THE TERMS”…IT DEPENDS SOLELY ON WHETHER THAT SPENDING IS IN FULFILLMENT OF ONE OF CONGRESS’ SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism.” (Pg. 5)
* THE EXISTENCE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL GRANTS TO THE STATES IN THE FIRST PLACE IS WHAT *REALLY* RUNS COUNTER TO FEDERALISM! IF CONGRESS IS GIVING MONEY TO THE STATES, IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THINGS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OF CONGRESS VIA THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS, THEN THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, PURE AND SIMPLE.
— “Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.” (Pg. 5)
* THE EXISTENCE OF MEDICAID AT ALL IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE. AND IT IS A COMPLETE MISCHARACTERIZATION TO SAY THAT MEDICAID IS ALLOWED UNDER THE “GENERAL WELFARE” CLAUSE, SINCE MEDICAID IS NOT FOR ALL OF THE CITIZENS EQUALLY, AND TAKES FROM SOME IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THIS BENEFIT FOR OTHERS.
— “The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals.” (Pg. 5)
* “VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS” HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO ANYONE ELSE’S PROPERTY THAN NON-VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS. AND NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE FOR ANY ONE CITIZEN OR GROUP OF CITIZENS OVER ANY OTHER, OR AT THE EXPENSE OF ANY OTHER. THE “GENERAL” IN “GENERAL WELFARE” IS THERE FOR A REASON…ALL OF THE CITIZENS ARE COVERED EQUALLY, OR NONE AT ALL.
— “A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to “alter” or “amend” the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically.” (Pg. 5)
* WELL, NO ONE ALSO COULD ANTICIPATE THAT CONGRESS WOULD SOMEDAY REQUIRE CITIZENS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT OR SERVICE, BUT HERE WE ARE.
— “The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.” (Pg. 5)
* NO, MEDICAID ITSELF VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE, NOR ALLOWED TO TAKE MONEY BY FORCE FROM SOME CITIZENS AND USE IT TO PAY FOR THE BENEFITS OF OTHERS.
AND BY THE WAY…ONCE YOU SAY THAT ANY PART OF THIS ACT “VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION”, THEN THE WHOLE THING DOES.
— “The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying Sec. 1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See Sec. 1303. The other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whether to participate in the Medicaid expansion.” (Pg. 5)
* WELL, IF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE WANTED IT, THEN I GUESS NOTHING ELSE MATTERS, HUH? THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION IS NOT “FULLY REMEDIED”…NOT EVEN CLOSE. IT’S JUST FULLY GLOSSED OVER BY IGNORING THE LARGER PROBLEM OF ALLOWING THE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.
— “Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding – not the granting – of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress’s extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate.” (Pg. 6)
* WELL, THIS COULDN’T BE ANY STUPIDER…IF THE GRANTING OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO THE STATES WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SPENDING CLAUSE, THEN THE WITHHOLDING OF THEM WOULD BE AS WELL. THE GRANTOR GIVES THE MONEY, AND SHOULD THEREFORE DICTATE THE TERMS OF THE GRANTING. BUT, I GUESS IF WE’RE GOING TO IGNORE THIS FACT ON THE LEVEL OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, THEN WHY NOT ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATES AS WELL???
— “Even absent Sec. 1303’s command, the Court would have no warrant to invalidate the funding offered by the Medicaid expansion, and surely no basis to tear down the ACA in its entirety. When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation.” (Pg. 6)
* I STAND CORRECTED…THIS IS EVEN STUPIDER THAN YOUR PRECEDING COMMENT. THE COURT SURELY DOES HAVE A BASIS TO TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE ACT…AND THAT BASIS IS THE CONSTITUTION. EVEN WORSE, YOU STATE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, AND YET STILL THINK IT’S YOUR DUTY TO PRESERVE THE LEGISLATION AT ALL COSTS. AGAIN, I REMIND YOU OF THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT) AND THE DEFAULT POSITION OF GOVERNMENT (AN ABSENCE OF POWER)…THUS, ANYTHING THAT EXPANDS GOVERNMENT POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIBERTY OF EVEN ONE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IS, BY DEFINITION, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “…the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a minimum level of coverage…” (Pg. 2)
* THIS MANDATE FORCES PEOPLE TO PURCHASE A “MINIMUM LEVEL OF COVERAGE” WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT…AND WHETHER THEY NEED TO OR NOT. MANY WEALTHY PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO BUY COVERAGE BECAUSE IT MAKES MORE FINANCIAL SENSE FOR THEM TO JUST PAY FOR ANY NEEDED/WANTED HEALTH CARE OUT-OF-POCKET…BUT NOW THEY AREN’T ALLOWED TO DO THAT. OR, IF THEY DO CONTINUE DOING THAT, THEY’RE STILL REQUIRED TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE THAT THEY DON’T WANT AND/OR WON’T USE. AND THIS COMPLETELY MISSES THE BIGGER UNDERLYING POINT, THAT THE PROBLEM THIS LAW SUPPOSEDLY ADDRESSES – GOVERNMENT PAYING TOO MUCH FOR HEALTH CARE COSTS – IS ALREADY FUNDAMENTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SINCE THAT IS NOT ONE OF CONGRESS’ ENUMERATED POWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
— “…the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they provide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold.” (Pg. 2)
* WELL, SO MUCH FOR THE “GENERAL WELFARE”…”GENERAL” MEANS “EVERYONE’S INCLUDED”. AND AGAIN, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING ALLOWED TO SPEND ANY FUNDS ON (OR HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH) HEALTH CARE?
— “We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.” (Pg. 2)
* WELL, SINCE THE DEFAULT POSITION OF GOVERNMENT IS AN ABSENCE OF POWER, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, THEN THE ANSWER TO THAT IS QUITE SIMPLE…A DEFINITE “NO”. AND WHEN THE NATION’S ELECTED LEADERS PASS ANY LAW THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS, THEN IT IS *PRECISELY* THE JOB OF THE COURT TO STRIKE IT DOWN.
— “In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder.” (Pg. 2)
* PRECISELY…AND THOSE “ONLY LIMITED POWERS” POSSESSED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION…THOSE ENUMERATED POWERS ARE ALL THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO – NO MORE, NO LESS.
— “Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted” to the Federal Government “is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819).” (Pg. 2)
* THE QUESTION MAY BE PERPETUALLY ARISING, BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT AMBIGUOUS ABOUT THIS…THE GRANTED POWERS ARE LIMITED TO ONLY THOSE FEW SPECIFICALLY LISTED. AND CONTINUED VIOLATIONS OF THOSE LIMITS – SUCH AS OBAMACARE – ARE WHAT IS DESTROYING (HAS ALREADY DESTROYED?) OUR SYSTEM.
— “In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess.” (Pg. 2)
* WELL, THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD…IF THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T LIST IT AS AN ENUMERATED POWER, THEN CONGRESS DOESN’T POSSESS IT AS ONE. CASE CLOSED!
— “Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries.” (Pg. 2)
* ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”. SO THE ONLY “LIMIT” TO THE SUPREME COURT’S ROLE HERE IS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF…IF CONGRESS ASSUMES ANY POWER FOR WHICH IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THEN IT’S THE COURT’S JOB TO POINT THAT OUT AND STRIKE IT DOWN. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND???
— “The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.” Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers. Congress may, for example, “coin Money,” “establish Post Offices,” and “raise and support Armies.” Art. I, Sec. 8, Cls. 5, 7, 12. The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824).” (Pg. 2)
* ONCE AGAIN, THERE YOU GO…CASE CLOSED! HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ENUMERATED POWERS, AND THAT ITS AUTHORITY IS LIMITED TO ONLY THOSE ENUMERATED POWERS…AND THEN ENTERTAIN THE NOTION THAT IT IS IN ANY WAY ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THOSE ENUMERATED POWERS??? HOW IN THE WORLD IS THIS SO DIFFICULT? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY JUSTIFY COMPLETELY CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS WITH YOUR FINAL RULING?
— “The Constitution’s express conferral of some powers makes clear that it does not grant others. And the Federal Government “can exercise only the powers granted to it.” McCulloch, supra, at 405.” (Pg. 2-3)
* PRECISELY…THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY EXERCISE THOSE VERY FEW POWERS GRANTED TO IT, AND NONE OTHER. NO MORE, NO LESS. AND YET YOU STILL FIND A WAY TO GRANT THEM THE EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO FORCE EVERYONE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, IN ADDITION TO ALLOWING ALL OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING THAT ALREADY EXISTS TO CONTINUE UNCHALLENGED.
— “Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the first place. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.” (Pg. 3)
* AGAIN, THIS IS ENTIRELY ACCURATE…AND COMPLETELY UNDERMINES YOUR FINAL APPROVAL OF OBAMACARE. IT ALSO COMPLETELY UNDERMINES MOST OF THE PRECEDENT UPON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR APPROVAL OF OBAMACARE!
— “Indeed, the Constitution did not initially include a Bill of Rights at least partly because the Framers felt the enumeration of powers sufficed to restrain the Government. As Alexander Hamilton put it, “the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” The Federalist No. 84, p. 515 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). And when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers necessarily implied: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. The Federal Government has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions.” (Pg. 3)
* OH, IF ONLY THAT LAST LINE WERE ACTUALLY FOLLOWED…IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY WAS STILL REQUIRED TO “SHOW THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER AUTHORIZES EACH OF ITS ACTIONS”, THEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE “EXPANDED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES”, NOW WOULD IT? THE ENUMERATION OF POWERS *DOES* SUFFICE TO RESTRAIN THE GOVERNMENT…UNLESS YOU’RE WILLFULLY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION (THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY). AND SINCE “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION…ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE”, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS, BY DEFINITION, NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING THAT IT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO DO VIA ITS ENUMERATED POWERS. AND ONE OF THOSE THINGS IT’S NOT REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO DO IS HEALTH CARE, GENIUS.
— “The States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern government — punishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for development, to name but a few.” (Pg. 3)
* IF ONLY THE STATES WERE LEFT ALONE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACTUALLY DO THOSE THINGS, AND WEREN’T BRIBED BY THE PROMISE OF (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) FEDERAL FUNDING TO RUN THOSE PROGRAMS/INSTITUTIONS THE WAY THAT FEDERAL OFFICIALS WANT TO SEE THEM RUN.
— “Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed.” (Pg. 4)
* IN THEORY, YES…IN PRACTICE, HELL NO. THAT’S THE WAY IT’S *SUPPOSED* TO BE, BUT WE HAVE TOO MANY POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON WHO ARE LOATHE TO GIVE UP THAT POWER AND CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES…AND MORONIC JUDGES WHO ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB IN ORDER TO “SAVE THE LAWS FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALITY”.
— “The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy.” (Pg. 4)
* YES, THE FRAMERS DID ENSURE THAT…UNTIL PEOPLE LIKE YOU CAME ALONG AND IGNORED THE INTENTIONAL LIMITS THEY PLACED UPON GOVERNMENT.
— “The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” (Pg. 4)
* WELL, IT DID…UNTIL WE DECIDED TO COMPLETELY IGNORE FEDERALISM, AND GRANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER/ CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY…LIKE WITH OBAMACARE, FOR INSTANCE.
— “The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seemingly local matters as a farmer’s decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestock, and a loan shark’s extortionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop.” (Pg. 4-5)
* WELL THEN, THIS IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS A FARMER CAN GROW (OR NOT GROW) WHATEVER HE WANTS FOR WHOMEVER HE WANTS, AND CAN SELL (OR NOT SELL) WHATEVER HE WANTS TO WHOMEVER HE WANTS. AND “REGULATING” A LOAN SHARK’S EXTORTIONATE COLLECTIONS ISN’T ANYTHING AT ALL LIKE THE WHEAT FARMER’S SITUATION. BESIDES, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUTCHER ENTERS INTO A LEGAL CONTRACT WITH THE LOAN SHARK, THEN THE BUTCHER SHOULD BE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY THAT CONTRACT. THAT DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE LOAN SHARK IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE TO COLLECT HIS MONEY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE BUTCHER’S PERSONAL SAFETY, AND THUS HIS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
— “The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.” (Pg. 5)
* SURE…BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS STILL STRICTLY LIMITED (BY ITS ENUMERATED POWERS) ON WHAT IT CAN SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON. IF CONGRESS WANTS TO STORE UP EXCESS TAX RECEIPTS FOR A RAINY DAY, THEN FINE…BUT THE PEOPLE (WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE) STILL HAVE A SAY OVER THAT TOO.
— “And in exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions.” (Pg. 5)
* OH, REALLY??? PLEASE TELL ME JUST WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS THAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO THAT?
— “These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies that the Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 205–206 (1987) (conditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21).” (Pg. 5)
* WELL, IF THIS DOESN’T GO COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT), THEN I DON’T KNOW WHAT DOES. THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS…FIRST OF ALL, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT CONGRESS CAN SEND FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS TO THE STATES? IS THAT SO THE STATES CAN TAKE CARE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE OF ESTABLISHING POST ROADS? IF SO, THEN THE ONLY “CONDITION” THAT SHOULD EXIST IS THAT THE FUNDS BE SPENT EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTIVITY FOR WHICH THAT MONEY WAS SENT TO THE STATES. IF CONGRESS WOULDN’T FOCUS ON DOING SO MANY OTHER THINGS IT’S NOT REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO DO, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE TO DELEGATE THAT TO THE STATES ANYWAY. AND WHAT ABOUT FEDERALISM? OR STATES’ RIGHTS? IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “CONDITIONS” FUNDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE STATES ADOPT POLICIES THAT CONGRESS CAN’T ITSELF IMPOSE, THEN THAT’S NOTHING MORE THAN EXTORTION, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PREVENTED FROM BEING ALLOWED TO IMPOSE CERTAIN POLICIES, THEN IT’S ALSO PROHIBITED FROM FORCING ANY STATES TO ENACT THEM. THE STATES ARE MUCH LESS LIMITED IN REGARDS TO THE POLICIES THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ENACT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO FORCE THE STATES TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL, EXCEPT TO ABIDE BY FEDERAL LAWS/POLICIES (THAT ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENUMERATED POWERS, OF COURSE).
— “The reach of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 18.” (Pg. 5)
* YOU COULD NOT BE READING THIS ANY MORE WRONGLY. YOU ARE STILL IGNORING THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION — TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. CONGRESS IS ONLY AUTHORIZED TO DO CERTAIN SPECIFIC THINGS (ENUMERATED POWERS), AND CAN ONLY MAKE LAWS “NECESSARY AND PROPER” FOR PERFORMING THOSE CERTAIN SPECIFIC DUTIES. THAT DOES NOT EMPOWER CONGRESS TO FORCE STATES TO DO THINGS FOR WHICH CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY ITSELF, AND IT DOES NOT EMPOWER CONGRESS TO DO ANYTHING THAT IT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO DO VIA THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “We have long read this provision to give Congress great latitude in exercising its powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 421.” (Pg. 5-6)
* THEN YOU ARE READING THAT PROVISION IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS INTENDED…THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, THUS THE DEFAULT POSITION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN ABSENCE OF POWER. READING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IN SUCH A WAY TO GIVE CONGRESS “GREAT LATITUDE” OR TO BROADEN ITS SCOPE IS THE DEFINITION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. IF SOMETHING IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THEN IT IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, BY VIRTUE OF ITS OMISSION.
— “Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883).” (Pg. 6)
* FIRST OF ALL, THERE SHOULD BE NO “PERMISSIVE READING” OF ANY GOVERNMENT POWERS…INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS PARAMOUNT, SO ANYTHING THAT EXPANDS GOVERNMENT POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF EVEN ONE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SECOND, WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY RETICENCE TO INVALIDATE THE ACTS OF THE NATION’S ELECTED LEADERS? IF THEY PASS ANY LAW THAT IS NOT REQUIRED/ALLOWED BY THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO HESITATION WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE COURT TO STRIKE DOWN THE ENTIRE LAW IMMEDIATELY. THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH “PROPER RESPECT FOR A CO-ORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT”, BUT THAT SHOULDN’T TRUMP SHOWING PROPER (I.E., GREATER) RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION’S LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT! “THE LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY” COULD NOT BE MORE OBVIOUS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF OBAMACARE, SINCE NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT CONGRESS BEING REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE, OR BEING ALLOWED TO FORCE PEOPLE TO PURCHASE ANYTHING. PRECEDENT AND “PROPER RESPECT” DO NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.
— “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” (Pg. 6)
* AND “INTERPRET” IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN “MEASURE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY”; CONGRESSMEN ALSO DO NOT NECESSARILY POSSESS ANY EXPERTISE, AND THEY CERTAINLY DON’T POSSESS THE PREROGATIVE TO MAKE POLICY JUDGMENTS THAT VIOLATE THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS. YES, THE NATION’S ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CAN BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE IF THE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THEM, BUT THAT DOESN’T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION’S LIMITS ON THEIR POWERS. IT IS MOST CERTAINLY YOUR JOB TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES, IF THEY (OR THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES) CHOOSE TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. AND ON THIS “ELECTED LEADERS” CRAP…ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT “LEADERS”…THEY’RE *SUPPOSED* TO BE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE. MAYBE THIS IGNORANCE EXPLAINS WHY YOU GET THE REST OF THIS RULING SO INCREDIBLY WRONG?
— “Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed.” (Pg. 6)
* ABSOLUTELY CORRECT…AND YET YOU JUST GOT DONE SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH! IF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS ARE “DEFINED AND LIMITED”, THEN THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL THAT THEY’RE NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO DO. AND IF THOSE “RESTRAINTS ON FEDERAL POWER” WERE SO “CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED”, THEN WHY IS IT SO DAMN HARD FOR YOU TO INVALIDATE OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES WHICH HAVE NO BASIS IN ANY ENUMERATED POWERS???
— “And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.” (Pg. 6)
* AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY CORRECT…EVEN THOUGH YOU JUST SAID THE ANTITHESIS OF THIS ABOVE. AND BY THE WAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ANY EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIBERTY OF EVEN ONE INDIVIDUAL “TRANSGRESSES THOSE LIMITS”…SUCH AS OBAMACARE AND THE OTHER EXISTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS YOU PREVIOUSLY JUST GLOSSED OVER.
— “The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.” (Pg. 6)
* HAHAHAHAHA…THAT’S A GOOD ONE! WHICH BASIC PRINCIPLES? THE FIRST ONES YOU MENTIONED WHERE YOU DON’T DARE OVERTURN ANY ACTS OF CONGRESS IF THERE’S ANY POSSIBLE (ALBEIT OUTLANDISH AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL) WAY TO SAVE THEM, OR THE SECOND SET WHERE YOU SAID IT’S YOUR DUTY TO OVERTURN THEM IF THEY TRANSGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS??? DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN RULING? COULD YOU BE ANY MORE LEGALLY SCHIZOPHRENIC???
— “The Act aims to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.” (Pg. 7)
* DON’T TELL ME YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS OBVIOUS LIE. OBAMACARE DOES NOT AIM TO DO EITHER OF THOSE…ITS AIM IS UNIVERSAL, SINGLE-PAYER, NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE (SEE THE LINK TO OBAMA’S SPEECH IN MY FIRST BULLET POINT ABOVE FOR ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE “AIM” OF THIS LAW). AND BESIDES, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HEALTH INSURANCE OR HEALTH CARE ANYWAY (BEYOND GENERAL ENFORCEMENT OF LEGAL CONTRACTS)? EVEN IF THE LAW WAS ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE PURPORTED “AIMS” OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE AND DECREASING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE (WHICH HISTORY TELLS US IS IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER – EVER – BEEN ABLE TO MAKE ANYTHING BETTER OR CHEAPER THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR), THE GOVERNMENT’S SIMPLY NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN ATTEMPT IT, SINCE THOSE AREN’T LISTED AS ENUMERATED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
— “The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. Sec. 5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens.” (Pg. 7)
* BESIDES THE OBVIOUS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVING ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HEALTH INSURANCE AND REQUIRING ANYONE TO BUY ANYTHING… HOW DOES MAKING THIS ONLY APPLICABLE TO “MOST AMERICANS” JIBE WITH EQUAL PROTECTION, OR “GENERAL WELFARE”? IN CASE YOU FORGOT…”GENERAL” MEANS “ALL”. AND ARE YOU IMPLYING IN THESE TWO SENTENCES THAT UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ARE AMERICANS??? YOU SAY “MOST AMERICANS” IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND THEN IN THE NEXT, THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE OF THOSE NOT INCLUDED IN “MOST AMERICANS” ARE PRISONERS AND UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS… THE PRISONERS CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE AMERICANS, BUT UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ARE NOT. SHOULD WE TAKE THIS AS AN INDICATION OF HOW YOU WILL RULE ON THE NEXT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMNESTY BILL THAT CONGRESS PASSES???
— “Many individuals will receive the required coverage through their employer, or from a government program such as Medicaid or Medicare.” (Pg. 7)
* ONCE AGAIN, NO MENTION OF THE UTTER UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDICAID AND MEDICARE…NOR OF THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THIS LAW, WHICH IS THE EVENTUAL ELIMINATION OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED COVERAGE TOO.
— “But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. (Pg. 7)
* THE SIMPLE FACT ALONE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING ANYONE TO PURCHASE ANYTHING MAKES THIS LAW COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS RULING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT TWO SENTENCES LONG.
— “Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government.” (Pg. 7)
* WHAT, EXACTLY, ARE WE “SHARING RESPONSIBILITY” FOR? AND HOW IS THAT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTIONAL? THE ONLY THINGS WE NEED TO “SHARE RESPONSIBILITY” FOR IS PAYING FOR THOSE VERY FEW REQUIRED DUTIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – THE ENUMERATED POWERS – NONE OF WHICH MENTION PROVIDING OR PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE OR HEALTH INSURANCE AT ALL…FOR ANYONE. THE THINGS THAT DO ENTAIL “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY” FROM ALL CITIZENS ARE ONLY THOSE VERY FEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DUTIES/PROGRAMS THAT APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN EQUALLY (“THE COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE” — AGAIN, “COMMON” AND “GENERAL” MEAN “ALL”)…AND THOSE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DUTIES/PROGRAMS ARE LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE VERY FEW ENUMERATED POWERS LISTED IN ARTICLE I, SECTION 8.
— “That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. Sec. 5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.G., prescription drugs and hospitalization).” (Pg. 7)
* THANKS FOR THE USELESS RECAP OF CALCULATIONS…THIS “PENALTY” IS OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SO ANY METHODS FOR CALCULATING IT ARE ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS.
— “The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund.” (Pg. 7-8)
* IT’S OBVIOUS THAT YOU’RE STARTING DOWN YOUR MISGUIDED PATH OF SAYING THAT THIS WHOLE BOONDOGGLE IS ALLOWED UNDER CONGRESS’ POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES…BUT, OF COURSE, THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS CAN ONLY BE USED TO FUND THE VERY FEW REQUIRED DUTIES OF CONGRESS AS ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 — NO MORE, NO LESS. AND, OF COURSE, HEALTH CARE IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE AMONG THOSE ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies.” (Pg. 8)
* WELL, IS THIS A LAW, OR ISN’T IT??? IF THERE ARE NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT OBEYING THIS LAW, THEN WHAT’S THE POINT?
— “And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty – for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes.” (Pg. 8)
* AGAIN…SO MUCH FOR EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE VAUNTED “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY”. THE PUNISHMENT OF SUCCESS IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA…AS IS FORCED “CHARITY”.
— “The District Court determined that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, and therefore struck down the Act in its entirety.” (Pg. 8)
* IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DID THE RIGHT THING. BUT THEY STILL DIDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH…THEY ALSO SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH INSURANCE/ CARE AT ALL (OR WITH ANY BUSINESS, FOR THAT MATTER, EXCEPT FOR GUARANTEEING ENFORCEMENT OF LEGAL CONTRACTS).
— “According to the majority [of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit], the Commerce Clause does not empower the Federal Government to order individuals to engage in commerce, and the Government’s efforts to cast the individual mandate in a different light were unpersuasive.” (Pg. 8-9)
* OF COURSE IT DOESN’T, NO MATTER WHETHER IT’S CONSIDERED A “TAX” OR A “PENALTY” OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND EVEN IF IT DOES… TAXES ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON ITS FEW ENUMERATED DUTIES, AMONG WHICH HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH CARE ARE NOT LISTED.
— “Judge Marcus dissented, reasoning that the individual mandate regulates economic activity that has a clear effect on interstate commerce.” (Pg. 9)
* WELL THEN, JUDGE MARCUS IS A MORON…CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT NOT OTHER THINGS WHICH HAVE AN “EFFECT” ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. INDIVIDUALS CHOOSING TO EAT A BIG MAC INSTEAD OF A WHOPPER ALSO AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE…ARE THE COURTS AND CONGRESS NEXT GOING TO TELL US HOW MANY OF EACH WE HAVE TO BUY?
— “Having held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the majority examined whether that provision could be severed from the remainder of the Act. The majority determined that, contrary to the District Court’s view, it could. The court thus struck down only the individual mandate, leaving the Act’s other provisions intact.” (Pg. 9)
* AGAIN, ONLY HALF RIGHT…THE MANDATE IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT SO IS THE REMAINDER OF THE ACT! IF THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING, THEN IT’S NOT ALLOWED…PERIOD. AND BESIDES THAT, HOW CAN THE COURT STRIKE DOWN THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, BUT LET THE REST OF THE LAW STAND? THE MANDATE IS THE *CORE* OF THE LAW…WITHOUT IT, THE ENTIRE LAW COLLAPSES ON ITSELF, AS IT NO LONGER HAS ANY FUNDING MECHANISM.
— “The Fourth Circuit determined that the Anti-Injunction Act prevents courts from considering the merits of that question. See Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 671 F. 3d 391 (2011). That statute bars suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” (Pg. 9)
* THAT’S ALL WELL AND GOOD…PROVIDED THAT THE COLLECTED TAXES ARE NOT BEING SPENT ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS. IT’S NOT THE “ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION” THAT’S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, IT’S WHAT THOSE COLLECTED TAXES ARE SPENT ON. AND YES, CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIMS, THAT IS MOST CERTAINLY AN ISSUE ON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT CAN AND SHOULD RULE. IT’S NOT JUST A “CONSEQUENCE OF OUR POLITICAL CHOICES”…IT’S A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION’S LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER, AND IT’S THE COURT’S JOB TO BE THE FINAL CHECK AND BALANCE ON THAT, IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE AND UPHOLD THE LEGAL SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION.
— “A majority of the Fourth Circuit panel reasoned that the individual mandate’s penalty is a tax within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act, because it is a financial assessment collected by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. The majority therefore determined that the plaintiffs could not challenge the individual mandate until after they paid the penalty.” (Pg. 9)
* I GUESS THAT MEANS THAT THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PANEL WAS ABOUT AS BRILLIANT AS YOU ON THIS…THEY ALSO BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO FIND ANY WAY TO SAVE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF CONGRESS.
— “The second provision of the Affordable Care Act directly challenged here is the Medicaid expansion. Enacted in 1965, Medicaid offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care.” (Pg. 10)
* AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING REPETITIVE…WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ASSISTING PREGNANT WOMEN, CHILDREN, NEEDY FAMILIES, THE BLIND, THE ELDERLY, AND THE DISABLED IN OBTAINING MEDICAL CARE? IF THEY’RE NOT ACTUAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, WHERE IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDING ANYONE WITH *ANY* SUCH ASSISTANCE? AND HOW ARE THESE PROGRAMS PAID FOR? IT’S NOT LIKE THE GOVERNMENT JUST HAS A STASH OF MONEY SITTING AROUND…THE ONLY MONEY THE GOVERNMENT HAS IS WHAT IT TAKES FROM US IN TAXES, ETC. WHICH IS FINE…IF THOSE TAX DOLLARS ARE USED TO FUND *ONLY* THINGS THAT CONGRESS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO DO. AND THOSE VERY FEW REQUIRED/ALLOWED DUTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE “THE COMMON DEFENCE AND THE GENERAL WELFARE”…WHICH MEANS THEY MUST SERVE *ALL* CITIZENS EQUALLY, NOT TAKE FROM A FEW AND REDISTRIBUTE TO OTHERS. NOT ONLY SHOULD OBAMACARE HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT THIS WAS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY – FINALLY – ADDRESS THE INHERENT UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY AND ALL FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT/WELFARE/BENEFIT/ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. WAY TO FAIL THERE, GENIUS.
— “In order to receive that funding, States must comply with federal criteria governing matters such as who receives care and what services are provided at what cost.” (Pg. 10)
* IN OTHER WORDS, FEDERALISM GETS TRUMPED BY BLACKMAIL.
— “By 1982 every State had chosen to participate in Medicaid.” (Pg. 10)
* YEAH, WELL…STATES ALSO CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN SLAVERY, BUT THAT DIDN’T MAKE IT RIGHT, DID IT?
— “Federal funds received through the Medicaid program have become a substantial part of state budgets, now constituting over 10 percent of most States’ total revenue.” (Pg. 10)
* THAT IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS…JUST BECAUSE STATE BUDGETS ARE DEPENDENT ON THAT MONEY NOW, OR EVEN BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS ARE, DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION’S STRICT LIMITS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER. BUT, THIS WAS THE GOAL THE WHOLE TIME…TO MAKE PEOPLE DEPENDENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR SIMPLEST WANTS AND NEEDS, IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE CONTINUED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE NAME OF “COMPASSION” OR “FAIRNESS” OR “CHARITY” OR WHATEVER FALSE, MISGUIDED NOTION SERVES AS THE PREFERRED EXCUSE OF THE DAY TO VIOLATE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND GROW GOVERNMENT POWER.
— “The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover.” (Pg. 10)
* THE STATES “MUST COVER” NO ONE! THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO FORCE THAT UPON THE STATES…AND NOT TO MENTION THE COMPLETE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDICAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.
— “For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all.” (Pg. 10)
* WHAT MAKES THE “POOR” ANY MORE ENTITLED TO FEDERAL BENEFITS THAN ANYONE ELSE? WHAT ABOUT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW? NOW, I KNOW THAT THE TRUE GOAL OF OBAMACARE IS TO MAKE EVERYONE DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE “RICH” WHO AREN’T CURRENTLY COVERED BY MEDICAID…BUT EVEN ADHERING TO EQUAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS DOESN’T EXCUSE BLATANTLY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT BY EVEN ALLOWING MEDICAID TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. FORCED “CHARITY” IS NOT TRUE CHARITY (AND IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL).
— “If a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for those requirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds.” (Pg. 10)
* AND THIS IS WHY STATES SHOULD FIGURATIVELY GIVE CONGRESS A BIG FIGURATIVE MIDDLE FINGER, AND SAY THAT THEY’RE NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THIS CONTINUED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. BUT, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE REACHED THAT POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND WOULDN’T HAVE, IF THE SUPREME COURT DID ITS JOB AND STOPPED THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS/PROGRAMS BEFORE THEY COULD TAKE HOLD.
— “The Court of Appeals unanimously held that the Medicaid expansion is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. U. S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.” (pg. 11)
* WELL THEN, I GUESS THAT MEANS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS IS POPULATED BY MORONS AS WELL. ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 STATES THAT “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”…SEE THE PROBLEMS HERE? THE BIGGEST ONES ARE: 1) “COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE” MEAN THAT ANY LAW/PROGRAM CONGRESS ENACTS MUST APPLY TO “ALL” CITIZENS EQUALLY…AND TAKING PROPERTY FROM SOME CITIZENS WHO HAVE EARNED IT AND REDISTRIBUTING IT TO OTHERS WHO HAVEN’T IS *NOT* EQUAL APPLICATION. 2) “ALL DUTIES, IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM” MEANS THAT EVERY CITIZEN SHALL PAY A UNIFORM AMOUNT – “UNIFORM” MEANS “SAME”… “EQUAL”… “EQUIVALENT” – AND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CASE WITH OBAMACARE, MEDICAID, MEDICARE, OR EVEN INCOME TAXES (WHICH, IF THE SUPREME COURT DID ITS JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE, WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ALLOWED VIA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT…AND IF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES *ARE* ALLOWED TO EXIST, THEY *MUST* BE PAID VIA EITHER EQUAL AMOUNTS OR EQUAL PERCENTAGES FROM *ALL* CITIZENS…ANYTHING ELSE IS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.)
— “And the court rejected the States’ claim that the threatened loss of all federal Medicaid funding violates the Tenth Amendment by coercing them into complying with the Medicaid expansion.” (Pg. 11)
* MEDICAID ITSELF IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL…AS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCING THE STATES TO GO ALONG WITH *ANYTHING* THAT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U. S. C. 7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes.” (Pg. 11)
* ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT THAT CONGRESS IS ONLY ALLOWED TO SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS TO FULFILL ITS ENUMERATED POWERS…AND IT MOST CERTAINLY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THAT, TO ENSURE THAT THE LAWS WHICH ARE PASSED ARE IN LINE WITH CONGRESS’ REQUIRED/ALLOWED DUTIES…IF NOT, THEN THEY MUST BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.” (Pg. 13)
* WELL, SURE, WHY THE HELL NOT? I MEAN, CONGRESS GETS TO DO PRETTY MUCH WHATEVER IT WANTS ALL THE TIME ANYWAY – DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT -SO WHY NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH FLOATING DEFINITIONS TOO?
— “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.” (Pg. 15)
* OH, IF ONLY YOU WOULD…THE ONLY “MERITS” YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSTITUTION MENTIONS ANYTHING ABOUT CONGRESS BEING ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE. NO? OKAY THEN…CASE CLOSED!
— “The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate.” (Pg. 15)
* WOW, IT MUST BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS JUST TO TRY TO GET YOUR WAY…ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE TRYING TO JUSTIFY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!
— “First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms.” (Pg. 15)
* THIS IS SUCH UTTER NONSENSE…FAILURE TO BUY ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE CAN AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE! (SEE MY EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT BIG MACS AND WHOPPERS.) AND JUST BECAUSE PART OF A LAW WOULD BE UNDERCUT BY SOMETHING IS LARGELY IRRELEVANT…ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ENTIRE LAW IS BASED UPON A TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL PREMISE. ALSO, ONCE AGAIN, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EMPOWERS CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT “REGULATE” DOES NOT MEAN “COMPEL ACTIVITY”…CONGRESS HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY (OR NOT TO BUY) ANYTHING. IF ANY PORTION OF A LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEN THE “OTHER REFORMS” ARE ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
— “Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.” (Pg. 15)
* HOGWASH. UTTER UNCONSTITUTIONAL MALARKEY. YES, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO TAX, BUT *ONLY* TO FUND ITS VERY FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED DUTIES (HINT: HEALTHCARE AIN’T ONE OF THEM). NOT TO MENTION THE COMPLETELY NOVEL IDEA THAT CONGRESS CAN NOW TAX US FOR NON-ACTIVITY! REMEMBER THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER? TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT? THIS WOULD BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT.
— “According to the Government, the health care market is characterized by a significant cost-shifting problem. Everyone will eventually need health care at a time and to an extent they cannot predict, but if they do not have insurance, they often will not be able to pay for it.” (Pg. 16)
* EVERYONE ALSO NEEDS FOOD, AND WATER, AND SHELTER, AND CLOTHING…AND WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT EITHER SOMETIMES…BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PAYING FOR THOSE EITHER. NOR IS IT *REQUIRED* BY THE CONSTITUTION, SO IT’S NOT *ALLOWED*. AND WHAT WE’RE COMPLETELY IGNORING HERE IS THE REASON WHY HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE SO HIGH THAT IT’S OFTEN DIFFICULT TO PAY FOR WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE…THAT IS *SOLELY* BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE MARKET IN THE FIRST PLACE (WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL), WHICH JACKS UP THE COSTS, SINCE THERE’S NO INCENTIVE TO THE PROVIDERS TO KEEP PRICES DOWN SINCE THEY KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT NO MATTER WHAT.
— “Because state and federal laws nonetheless require hospitals to provide a certain degree of care to individuals without regard to their ability to pay, see, e.g., 42 U. S. C. 1395dd; Fla. Stat. Ann. 395.1041, hospitals end up receiving compensation for only a portion of the services they provide.” (Pg. 16)
* LET’S THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MINUTE…BEYOND THE BLATANT UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATING THAT ANY BUSINESS (HOSPITAL OR OTHERWISE) HAS TO PROVIDE SERVICES REGARDLESS OF THE CUSTOMER’S ABILITY TO PAY, WHAT DOES “A CERTAIN DEGREE OF CARE” MEAN? BECAUSE I’LL BET THAT IT’S WAY BEYOND BASIC LIFE-SAVING MEDICAL CARE, AND PROBABLY ALSO INCLUDES A LOT OF OTHER ELECTIVE THINGS THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE ALSO FORCED BY LAW TO INCLUDE IN THEIR POLICIES.
— “To recoup the losses, hospitals pass on the cost to insurers through higher rates, and insurers, in turn, pass on the cost to policy holders in the form of higher premiums. Congress estimated that the cost of uncompensated care raises family health insurance premiums, on average, by over $1,000 per year.” (Pg. 16)
* THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT ABOUT HIGHER HEALTH CARE COSTS BEING A DIRECT RESULT OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. BUT BESIDES THAT, WHAT BUSINESS DOESN’T PASS ALONG COSTS TO ITS CUSTOMERS? AND WHY THE HELL DOES CONGRESS’ ESTIMATES ABOUT ANYTHING MATTER EVEN THE LEAST BIT TO ANYONE? WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED TO BE EVEN THE LEAST BIT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT ANY CITIZEN PAYS FOR *ANY* PRODUCT OR SERVICE???
— “In the Affordable Care Act, Congress addressed the problem of those who cannot obtain insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions or other health issues. It did so through the Act’s “guaranteed-issue” and “community-rating” provisions. These provisions together prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to those with such conditions or charging unhealthy individuals higher premiums than healthy individuals.” (Pg. 16)
* IN OTHER WORDS, CONGRESS SET OUT TO DESTROY THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET. THERE’S NO OTHER WAY TO VIEW THIS ABSOLUTE FACT. INSURERS BASE THEIR RATES ON THE RISK OF THE PEOPLE THEY COVER WITH THEIR POLICIES…IF THEY’RE PROHIBITED FROM CHARGING MORE FOR HIGHER-RISK INDIVIDUALS, THEN THEY WILL CEASE TO EXIST, AS THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO STAY IN BUSINESS…PERIOD. AND, EVEN MORE BASICALLY IMPORTANT THAN THAT, I’LL ASK AGAIN…WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT REQUIRE CONGRESS TO ADDRESS ANY PROBLEMS OF THOSE WHO CANNOT OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ANY REASON? UNLESS AN INSURANCE COMPANY ISN’T HONORING A LEGAL CONTRACT THAT THEY’VE *ALREADY* AGREED TO WITH SOMEONE, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.
— “The guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms do not, however, address the issue of healthy individuals who choose not to purchase insurance to cover potential healthcare needs. In fact, the reforms sharply exacerbate that problem, by providing an incentive for individuals to delay purchasing health insurance until they become sick, relying on the promise of guaranteed and affordable coverage.” (Pg. 16)
* WELL…DUH. THAT ALSO GOES TO THE PURPOSE I STATED EARLIER, TO DESTROY THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET. BUT ALSO, WHERE DOES THAT “PROMISE OF GUARANTEED AND AFFORDABLE COVERAGE” COME FROM? WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS CONGRESS EMPOWERED TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT? ALSO, WHY WOULD YOU OF ALL PEOPLE THINK THAT THIS IS A “PROBLEM”? DIDN’T YOU SAY EARLIER THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED (DUE TO COURT PRECEDENT) TO INCENTIVIZE ACTIVITIES THAT IT WANTS CITIZENS TO ENGAGE IN, THAT IT COULDN’T OTHERWISE LEGALLY FORCE THEM TO DO VIA ITS ENUMERATED POWERS? WHY IS THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF INCENTIVIZATION A “PROBLEM” WHEN OTHERS AREN’T? IS IT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL MESS IT CAUSES? WHILE THAT IS AN ISSUE HERE (A PURPOSEFUL ONE, TO BE SURE), FINANCIAL MATTERS SUCH AS THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO BE CONCERNED WITH. AND THE ONLY REASON THIS PROBLEM EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS ALREADY INTERFERED IN AREAS IN WHICH IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ACTION, AND CREATED MARKET PROBLEMS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR INTERFERENCE. AND BY THE WAY…DEFINE “AFFORDABLE”. JUST BECAUSE IT IS CHEAP OR FREE FOR THE PERSON RECEIVING THE COVERAGE, SOMEONE ELSE STILL HAD TO PAY FOR IT. TAKING SOMETHING FROM ONE PERSON BY FORCE AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THE PAYER…AND IT’S NOT NECESSARILY “AFFORDABLE” TO THEM.
— “The reforms also threaten to impose massive new costs on insurers, who are required to accept unhealthy individuals but prohibited from charging them rates necessary to pay for their coverage. This will lead insurers to significantly increase premiums on everyone.” (Pg. 17)
* AGAIN…DUH. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT, GENIUS. AND AFTER INSURANCE COMPANIES JACK UP THEIR RATES (OUT OF FINANCIAL NECESSITY), THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SWOOPS IN AS THE DASHING HERO WITH “FREE” HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL, KNOCKS THE PRIVATE INSURERS OUT OF BUSINESS, AND VOILA…NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE. AND AGAIN, THIS WHOLE “REQUIRED” AND “PROHIBITED” THING…WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY THAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO TELL ANY BUSINESS HOW TO RUN, OR WHO THEY CAN/CANNOT ACCEPT AS CUSTOMERS, OR HOW MUCH THEY CAN CHARGE THEIR CUSTOMERS?
— “The individual mandate was Congress’s solution to these problems.” (Pg. 17)
* HA! I DON’T THINK THE WORD “SOLUTION” MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS…NOTHING THAT CONGRESS DOES THAT’S IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION’S LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT CAN BE LABELED AS A “SOLUTION”. EVEN IF IT’S INTENDED TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PRIOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS!
— “By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it.” (Pg. 17)
* WELL, THAT “COST-SHIFTING” WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF THE GOVERNMENT HADN’T STUCK ITS BIG NOSE IN WHERE IT DOESN’T BELONG! THIS SENTENCE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FINISHED THIS WAY…YOUR WHOLE LEGAL RULING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUMMED UP WITH THE FIRST PART OF THIS SENTENCE: “BY REQUIRING THAT INDIVIDUALS PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE”…FOLLOWED BY…”CONGRESS HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION. THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS THEREFORE OVERTURNED IN ITS ENTIRETY. CASE CLOSED.”
— “In addition, the mandate forces into the insurance risk pool more healthy individuals, whose premiums on average will be higher than their health care expenses. This allows insurers to subsidize the costs of covering the unhealthy individuals the reforms require them to accept.” (Pg. 17)
* HEY MORON…THIS IS WHAT PRIVATE INSURERS ALREADY DO! AND THIS IS WHAT THEY’RE BEING DEMONIZED FOR! THEY ALREADY *WANT* TO COVER THOSE HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, AND NOT THE HIGHER-RISK ONES, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHARGE HIGHER RATES FOR THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS…BECAUSE THEY WILL LIKELY REQUIRE MORE COVERAGE AND WILL THEREFORE COST MORE! INSURANCE COMPANIES ALREADY USE THE PREMIUMS OF THEIR HEALTHY CUSTOMERS (WHICH ARE ALREADY HIGHER THAN THEIR EXPENSES), TO SUBSIDIZE THE COSTS OF COVERING THE LESS HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY ALREADY CHOOSE TO ACCEPT (ALBEIT AT NECESSARILY HIGHER COSTS).
— “The Government claims that Congress has power under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to enact this solution.” (Pg. 17)
* THE COMMERCE AND NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSES DO NOT IN ANY WAY GIVE CONGRESS THIS POWER…TO “REGULATE COMMERCE” DOES NOT MEAN TO “COMPEL” IT. AND THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE ONLY PERMITS CONGRESS TO ACT SOLELY IN THE FULFILLMENT OF SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS (“the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution”)…IT DOES *NOT* GRANT CONGRESS ADDITIONAL POWERS THAT AREN’T ALREADY ENUMERATED, BUT ONLY THE ABILITY TO MAKE LAWS WHICH ENSURE THE FULFILLMENT OF THOSE VERY FEW DUTIES THAT THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES/ALLOWS GOVERNMENT TO DO.
— “The Government contends that the individual mandate is within Congress’s power because the failure to purchase insurance “has a substantial and deleterious effect on interstate commerce” by creating the cost-shifting problem.” (Pg. 17)
* AND YET AGAIN, WE BLOW RIGHT BY THE FACT THAT THE “COST-SHIFTING PROBLEM” IS A RESULT OF COMPLETELY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS *NO* AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO BE INVOLVED IN PAYING FOR HEALTH INSURANCE/CARE.
— “The path of our Commerce Clause decisions has not always run smooth, see United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 552–559 (1995), but it is now well established that Congress has broad authority under the Clause. We have recognized, for example, that “[t]he power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states,” but extends to activities that “have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 118–119 (1941).” (Pg. 17)
* “WELL ESTABLISHED”??? JUST BECAUSE COURT PRECEDENT EXCUSED RAMPANT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S LIMITS ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE ANY LESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! YOU KNOW WHAT’S EVEN MORE “WELL ESTABLISHED”? THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, AND ITS ENUMERATION OF THE VERY FEW REQUIRED/ALLOWED DUTIES OF CONGRESS. AND AGAIN, TO SAY THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS TO ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE AN EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS TO SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS UNLIMITED POWER OVER EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES…WHETHER WE BUY SOMETHING OR EVEN (ESPECIALLY, NOW?) IF WE DON’T.
— “Congress’s power, moreover, is not limited to regulation of an activity that by itself substantially affects interstate commerce, but also extends to activities that do so only when aggregated with similar activities of others.” (Pg. 17-18)
* HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW UTTERLY EXPANSIVE YOU’RE SAYING THAT CONGRESS’ POWER IS NOW? THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO *LIMIT* GOVERNMENT, BUT YOU HAVE TOTALLY BOUGHT INTO FLIPPING THAT COMPLETELY AROUND, AND ARE NOW SAYING THAT CONGRESS’ POWER IS BASICALLY UNLIMITED, SO LONG AS A BILL SAYING SO MAKES IT OUT OF THERE AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT INTO LAW.
— “Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time.” (Pg. 18)
* ITS SCOPE IS NOT “EXPANSIVE”, NOR CAN IT BE – BY DEFINITION – ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION’S PURPOSEFUL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT. AND THE ONLY “PRESSING NEED” THAT CONGRESS IS EVER ALLOWED TO ADDRESS IS REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY…WITH THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE BEING GOVERNMENT ITSELF.
— “But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product. Legislative novelty is not necessarily fatal; there is a first time for everything.” (Pg. 18)
* YOU KNOW WHAT I’D LIKE TO SEE FOR THE FIRST TIME? THE SUPREME COURT DOING ITS JOB, AND CITING THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS RULINGS, AND SPECIFYING THAT CONGRESS IS ONLY ALLOWED TO DO THE VERY FEW THINGS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT TO DO. THAT’D BE NICE FOR A CHANGE.
— “But sometimes “the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem…is the lack of historical precedent” for Congress’s action.” (Pg. 18)
*UMMMM, NO…THE MOST TELLING INDICATION IS THE LACK OF THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING CONGRESS TO TAKE THAT ACTION!
— “At the very least, we should “pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments” when confronted with such new conceptions of federal power.” (Pg. 18)
* PAUSE TO CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS??? NO, GENIUS…THE “VERY LEAST” IS ALL CONGRESS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO! THE VERY FACT THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN “NEW CONCEPTIONS OF FEDERAL POWER” PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU SIMPLY DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT DOCUMENT WASN’T WRITTEN TO JUST BE UNDERSTOOD BY LEGAL “EXPERTS” AND SUCH…IT WAS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN SIMPLY AND DIRECTLY AND UNDERSTANDABLY, SO THAT ANY PERSON CAN READ IT AND SEE PRECISELY WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS *ALLOWED* TO DO. THERE’S A REASON THEY’RE CALLED THE “ENUMERATED POWERS”…AND, OUTSIDE OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SERVE TO ALLOW EXPANSIONS OR “NEW CONCEPTIONS” OF FEDERAL POWER, THE CONGRESS IS LIMITED TO ONLY THOSE VERY FEW SPECIFIC DUTIES PROSCRIBED TO IT IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.
— “The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous.” (Pg. 18)
* AND YET, DESPITE STATING THIS OBVIOUS FACT, AND SEEMINGLY UNDERSTANDING IT, YOU STILL GO AHEAD AND AGREE THAT IT’S OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY – IN COMPLETE VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY – IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO REGULATE IT.
— “(“[T]he enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said”).” (Pg. 19)
* I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT YOU QUOTED THIS, AND YET COMPLETELY DISREGARDED IT IN THE END WITH YOUR RULING. YES, THEY INTENDED WHAT THEY SAID…THUS THEY INTENDED TO RESTRICT GOVERNMENT TO THOSE VERY FEW DUTIES THAT THEY SAID IT WAS *REQUIRED* TO PERFORM.
— “As expansive as our cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” (Pg. 19)
* NOT ONLY THAT, BUT, ACCORDING TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE “ACTIVITY” MUST BE “with foreign Nations”, OR “among the several States”, OR “with the Indian Tribes”. IT SAYS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ACTIVITY THAT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS ENGAGE IN WITH A PRIVATE COMPANY. HOW DO YOU NOT GRASP THIS???
— “4 JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “at the time the Constitution was framed, to ‘regulate’ meant, among other things, to require action.” Post, at 23 (citing Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F. 3d 1, 16 (CADC 2011); brackets and some internal quotation marks omitted). But to reach this conclusion, the case cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG relied on a dictionary in which “[t]o order; to command” was the fifth-alternative definition of “to direct,” which was itself the second-alternative definition of “to regulate.” See Seven-Sky, supra, at 16 (citing S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (reprinted 1978)). It is unlikely that the Framers had such an obscure meaning in mind when they used the word “regulate.” Far more commonly, “[t]o regulate” meant “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” which presupposes something to adjust. 2 Johnson, supra, at 1619; see also Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 196 (defining the commerce power as the power “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed”).” (Pg. 19 – footnote)
* HOLY CRAP! YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, WORRYING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF A WORD…AND YET YOU IGNORE THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE, OFTEN EXPLAINED BY THE FOUNDERS, SPECIFICALLY DIRECT PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION: TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. ANY LAW THAT SERVES TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIBERTY OF *EVEN ONE* INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IS – BY DEFINITION – UNCONSTITUTIONAL. INSTEAD OF JUST TRYING TO *SOUND* SMART, HOW ABOUT ACTUALLY *BEING* SMART FOR ONCE?
— “(“Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control”); see also post, at 15, 25–26, 28, 32 (GINSBURG, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part).” (Pg. 20)
*NOW WE’RE SAYING THAT “TO REGULATE” COMMERCE MEANS “TO PROTECT” IT FROM “BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS”??? WHAT BIGGER BURDEN/OBSTRUCTION TO COMMERCE IS THERE THAN GOVERNMENT REGULATION?! NOT ONLY *CAN* CONGRESS BE DENIED POWER TO EXERCISE CONTROL…IT *MUST* BE DENIED THAT POWER, SINCE IT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THAT POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS WHY HAMILTON EXPLAINED IN FEDERALIST 84 WHY A BILL OF RIGHTS WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THE CONSTITUTION, AS “They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
OBVIOUSLY, THE FOUNDERS INTENDED (AS THEY SPECIFICALLY STATED..NO MYSTERY HERE) THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY POWERS BEYOND WHAT WAS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED/REQUIRED (INCLUDING “REGULATING POWERS”). YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A “LEGAL EXPERT” TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MEANS THAT CONGRESS INDEED CAN – AND MUST -“BE DENIED THE POWER TO EXERCISE THAT CONTROL”, IF IT’S SOMETHING THAT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY *REQUIRED* BY THE CONSTITUTION’S ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” (Pg. 20)
* ABSOLUTELY CORRECT…AND ANY ONE OF THESE SEVERAL POINTS IS ENOUGH ON ITS OWN TO COMPLETELY INVALIDATE THIS ENTIRE LAW. OPENING ANY “NEW…CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY” IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THIS, SEE THE EXCERPT I QUOTED ABOVE FROM FEDERALIST 84, WHICH STATES THE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT POWER BEYOND THOSE VERY FEW THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.
— “Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the Government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.” (Pg. 21)
* PRECISELY…WHICH IS WHY IT’S SO INCREDIBLY BAFFLING THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU AT LEAST *APPEAR* TO GET THIS, YOUR FINAL RULING WAS STILL SO BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “Applying the Government’s logic to the familiar case of Wickard v. Filburn shows how far that logic would carry us from the notion of a government of limited powers. In Wickard, the Court famously upheld a federal penalty imposed on a farmer for growing wheat for consumption on his own farm. 317 U. S., at 114–115, 128–129. That amount of wheat caused the farmer to exceed his quota under a program designed to support the price of wheat by limiting supply. The Court rejected the farmer’s argument that growing wheat for home consumption was beyond the reach of the commerce power. It did so on the ground that the farmer’s decision to grow wheat for his own use allowed him to avoid purchasing wheat in the market. That decision, when considered in the aggregate along with similar decisions of others, would have had a substantial effect on the interstate market for wheat. Id., at 127–129.” (Pg. 21)
* OF COURSE THE COURT’S VIOLATING THE FARMER’S INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO GROW WHEAT FOR HIS OWN USE WAS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL…BUT JUST AS BIG OF A PROBLEM (PERHAPS EVEN BIGGER) IS THE EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE OF THE PROGRAM DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE PRICE OF WHEAT BY LIMITING SUPPLY. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE PRICE OF ANYTHING, OR INSTITUTING QUOTAS FOR ANYTHING? NOT ONLY WAS THE FARMER’S GROWING WHEAT FOR HOME CONSUMPTION BEYOND THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE POWER, BUT SO WOULD BE HIS GROWING WHEAT FOR SALE, OR HIS PURCHASE OR NON-PURCHASE OF WHEAT IN THE MARKET. THE COMMERCE POWER DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO INSTALL QUOTAS, OR PRICE CONTROLS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
— “Under Wickard it is within Congress’s power to regulate the market for wheat by supporting its price.” (Pg. 21)
* WELL THEN, WICKARD IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT’S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. JUST BECAUSE IT’S PRECEDENT DOESN’T MAKE IT LEGAL.
— “But price can be supported by increasing demand as well as by decreasing supply. The aggregated decisions of some consumers not to purchase wheat have a substantial effect on the price of wheat, just as decisions not to purchase health insurance have on the price of insurance.” (Pg. 21)
* AAANNNDDD…WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT BEING ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS.
— “Congress can therefore command that those not buying wheat do so, just as it argues here that it may command that those not buying health insurance do so.” (Pg. 21-22)
* CONGRESS CAN COMMAND ALL IT WANTS, BUT SINCE IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO, THEN WE CITIZENS CAN SIMPLY IGNORE THEM…AND WE ARE FULLY WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DO SO, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION’S PURPOSEFUL, STRICT LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT, IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
— “The farmer in Wickard was at least actively engaged in the production of wheat, and the Government could regulate that activity because of its effect on commerce.” (Pg. 22)
* NO, THE GOVERNMENT MOST CERTAINLY COULD NOT…THAT’S JUST WHAT YOUR COURT’S STUPID PRECEDENT SAID WAS A REASON WHY THE GOVERNMENT COULD REGULATE THE ACTIVITY. BUT THAT PRECEDENT HAS NO BASIS IN THE GOVERNMENT’S ENUMERATED POWERS PER THE CONSTITUTION. THAT’S NOT TO SAY THAT LIMITS EXIST ON THE GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO COLLECT TAXES, BUT RATHER ON WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON…AND THAT LIMITATION IS WHAT WILL (OR SHOULD) PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM EXCESSIVELY INTERFERING IN THE FREE MARKET, AND TRYING TO JUSTIFY ALL OF ITS INTERFERENCE BY CALLING IT “REGULATION”. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ALLOWS CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE “AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES”…MEANING THAT IF ONE STATE HAS CERTAIN COMMERCE LAWS, AND ANOTHER STATE HAS DIFFERENT COMMERCE LAWS, AND RESIDENTS OF EACH STATE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO BUSINESS WITH ONE ANOTHER, BUT THEIR TWO STATES’ LAWS ARE IN CONFLICT, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IRON IT OUT. THAT’S IT. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN’T GIVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT MIGHT “AFFECT COMMERCE”. ONLY A COMPETE CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORAMUS COULD SUPPORT THAT IDIOTIC NOTION.
— “The Government’s theory here would effectively override that limitation, by establishing that individuals may be regulated under the Commerce Clause whenever enough of them are not doing something the Government would have them do.” (Pg. 22)
* WELL, HERE WE ARE AGAIN…THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THERE’S AN EFFORT TO OVERRIDE ANY LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE KILLED THIS ENTIRE BILL IMMEDIATELY, SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION *IS* TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, AND THE DEFAULT POSITION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN ABSENCE OF POWER. THE GOVERNMENT STARTS FROM NOTHING…ANY INCREASE IN ITS POWER CAN ONLY BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS VERY FEW REQUIRED (ENUMERATED) DUTIES.
— “Indeed, the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem.” (Pg. 22)
* PRECISELY…YET ANOTHER REASON WHY THIS LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN ITS ENTIRETY IMMEDIATELY.
— “To consider a different example in the health care market, many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. That group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance. See, e.g., Dept. of Agriculture and Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 1 (2010).” (Pg. 22)
* SO, NOW YOU’RE CITING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES’ DIETARY GUIDELINES…AS IF COMING UP WITH THOSE IS A VALID FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL? WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CITIZENS CHOOSE TO EAT??? OR THAT GOVERNMENT GETS TO DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES A “BALANCED DIET”?
— “The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance.” (Pg. 22)
* COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, SINCE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE…SO ANY RELATED COSTS SHOULD BE PAID ONLY BY INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE, AND NOT BY OTHER CITIZENS VIA GOVERNMENT.
— “Those increased costs are borne in part by other Americans who must pay more, just as the uninsured shift costs to the insured.” (Pg. 22)
* SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? THIS IS WHAT INSURANCE COMPANY ACTUARIES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AND WHY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES REQUIRE THAT PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN INCREASED RISK FACTORS PAY HIGHER PREMIUMS. THE ONLY REASON THAT HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE SO HIGH IS PRECISELY BECAUSE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN THE MARKET IN THE FIRST PLACE (WHICH, AGAIN, IS ALSO COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL).
— “See Center for Applied Ethics, Voluntary Health Risks: Who Should Pay?, 6 Issues in Ethics 6 (1993) (noting “overwhelming evidence that individuals with unhealthy habits pay only a fraction of the costs associated with their behaviors; most of the expense is borne by the rest of society in the form of higher insurance premiums, government expenditures for health care, and disability benefits”).” (Pg. 22-23)
* AND WHY DO THOSE PEOPLE WITH UNHEALTHY HABITS PAY SO LITTLE OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR OWN BEHAVIORS? COULD THAT BE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT PROHIBITS – BY LAW – THE INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM COLLECTING ADEQUATE PREMIUMS FROM THEM, IN THE NAME OF “FAIRNESS”??? AND COULD IT ALSO BE BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE MANDATES THAT ALREADY EXIST (AGAIN, BY LAW), REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COVER THINGS THAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULDN’T? AND NEED I MENTION AGAIN THE MAIN PROBLEM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY WITH “GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH CARE” AND GOVERNMENT “DISABILITY BENEFITS”???
— “Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.” (Pg. 23)
* RIGHT THERE YOU HAVE COMPLETELY EXPOSED THE UTTER UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS LAW…AND YET YOU STILL END UP APPROVING IT. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. UNLESS YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING HERE THAT YOU WOULD ALSO APPROVE OF A LAW WHEREIN CONGRESS ORDERED EVERYONE TO BUY VEGETABLES???
— “People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.” (Pg. 23)
* DEFINE “GOOD”…ONE MAN’S DEFINITION OF “GOOD FOR SOCIETY” IS ANOTHER MAN’S DEFINITION OF ABSOLUTE TYRANNY. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY THE CONSTITUTION IS SO UTTERLY SPECIFIC…TO LIST THOSE FEW THINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO DO, AND THUS UTTERLY RESTRICT ITS ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING BEYOND THOSE FEW ENUMERATED DUTIES. WHETHER THE CITIZENS’ ACTIONS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT…AND IN NO WAY EXPANDS CONGRESS’ COMMERCE POWER TO COMPEL CITIZENS TO ACT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
— “That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.” (Pg. 23)
* YA THINK, GENIUS???
— “James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293.” (Pg. 23)
YEAH, AND WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS? DO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS SO PRECISELY SPECIFIC? AND SINCE THE DEFAULT POSITION OF GOVERNMENT IS AN ABSENCE OF POWER, THAT THE FOUNDERS DIDN’T IMAGINE THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WOULD ONE DAY BE COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED AND MISCONSTRUED TO ALLOW CONGRESS TO *FORCE* PEOPLE TO BUY ANYTHING? IT’S INTERESTING THAT YOU QUOTE THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HERE, AND YET COMPLETELY IGNORE ALL THE REST OF THE FOUNDERS’ WRITINGS WHICH SO PRECISELY SPELL OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING THAT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OF IT VIA THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE MADISON SAID? “The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” WHAT DO YOU THINK “DEFINED AND LIMITED” MEANS? SINCE HE USES THAT PHRASE RIGHT AFTER REFERENCING THE ENUMERATED POWERS…TAKE A GUESS!
— “While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.”” (Pg. 23)
* ANY EXPANSION OF CONGRESS’ AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL… JUST BECAUSE THE NATIONAL ECONOMY HAS GROWN DOES NOT EXCUSE VIOLATING THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND NO, YOUR CASES HAVE NOT “ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE…HAS LIMITS”…IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN WE WOULDN’T BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY. ALSO, THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IS NOT “BROAD INDEED”…IT’S STRICTLY LIMITED TO REGULATING “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. WE DON’T NEED TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO REIN IT IN…IT’S ALREADY STARTING FROM NOTHING – FROM SCRATCH. AS I STATED EARLIER, CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE “AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES” ONLY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN THERE’S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COMMERCE LAWS OF TWO STATES…THEN AND ONLY THEN DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STEP IN AND STRAIGHTEN IT OUT.
— The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison).” (Pg. 23)
* EXACTLY! HOW CAN YOU READ THIS, AND QUOTE IT ACCURATELY IN CONTEXT, AND THEN SO UTTERLY SCREW UP YOUR FINAL RULING SO HORRIBLY???
— “Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do.” (Pg. 23)
* NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, IT DOESN’T.
— “Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.” (Pg. 23-24)
* TRUE ENOUGH…BUT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY SO COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY NOT AS IT WAS INTENDED, AS MOST OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOW IS ALREADY IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION’S PROSCRIPTIONS.
— “To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not metaphysical philosophers.” (Pg. 24)
* YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LOST ON THE FRAMERS? THE FACT THAT MOST OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES TODAY IS ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND HOW IRONIC THAT YOU MENTION “THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DOING SOMETHING AND DOING NOTHING”…WHEN THE FRAMERS INTENTIONALLY LEFT US WITH A SYSTEM THAT PURPOSELY PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM “DOING SOMETHING” – IN FAVOR OF “DOING NOTHING” – EXCEPT FOR THOSE VERY FEW SPECIFIC THINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO DO.
— “As we have explained, “the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating, and prescribing in language clear and intelligible the powers that government was to take.”” (Pg. 24)
* YES, THE FRAMERS DID INDEED PRESCRIBE “in language clear and intelligible the powers that government was to take”…SO WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLARITY AND INTELLIGIBILITY OF THAT LANGUAGE??? AND NOT JUST ON CONGRESS’ CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LEVY AND COLLECT A TAX, BUT ALSO ON ITS LACK OF AUTHORITY TO SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON PROGRAMS FOR WHICH IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE?
— “The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding.” (Pg. 24)
*WELL, ACTUALLY THAT’S NOT QUITE TRUE…CONGRESS’ ACTIONS AND THE COURT’S DECISIONS HAVE ALLOWED/RESULTED IN COUNTLESS BLATANT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON CONGRESS…OBAMACARE JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST RECENTLY EGREGIOUS.
AND YES, “REGULATE” DOES NOT MEAN “COMPEL”…BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN “RESTRICT” EITHER.
— “The individual mandate “merely regulates how individuals finance and pay for that active participation — requiring that they do so through insurance, rather than through attempted self-insurance with the back-stop of shifting costs to others.”” (Pg. 24-25)
* WELL, WHY THE HELL DOES THAT “BACK-STOP OF SHIFTING COSTS TO OTHERS” EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT’S PRECISELY BECAUSE OF INITIAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE MARKETS, AND THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENT HAS UTTERLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION BY GIVING ITSELF THE ILLEGAL POWER TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE! NOT ONLY IS CONGRESS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT, IT ENABLES ITSELF TO DO THAT BY VIOLATING THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS FROM WHOM IT CONFISCATES PROPERTY IN ORDER TO REDISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHERS.
— “The Government repeats the phrase “active in the market for health care” throughout its brief, see id., at 7, 18, 34, 50, but that concept has no constitutional significance.” (Pg. 25)
* EXACTLY…SO, CASE CLOSED. WHY SPEND ANY MORE TIME AT ALL ON THIS, IF IT HAS “NO CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE”? THAT FACT ALONE INVALIDATES THIS ENTIRE LAW.
— An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not “active in the car market” in any pertinent sense. The phrase “active in the market” cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated by the individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to “regulate the uninsured as a class.”” (Pg. 25)
* AND NONE OF THIS OBSCURES THE FACT THAT NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPOWERED TO HAVE AN ACTION ROLE IN THE ECONOMY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ARE “ACTIVE IN THE MARKET” OR “CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY”. THE FACT THAT IS FATAL TO THE GOVERNMENT’S EFFORT IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE – AND THUS DOES NOT ALLOW -ANY OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS DONE HERE.
— “Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class[es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 153 (“Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in ‘extortionate credit transactions’…” (emphasis deleted)).” (Pg. 25)
* THEN YOUR PRECEDENTS ARE ABSOLUTE CRAP, AND HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS WHATSOEVER, AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE IGNORED/OVERTURNED. I ASSUME THAT THE PEOPLE ENGAGED IN “EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS” IN THE CITED CASE ARE THE LOAN SHARKS YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER…AGAIN, THIS ISN’T AN ACTIVITY THAT IS “REGULATED”, BUT RATHER SIMPLY ILLEGAL, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE LOAN SHARKS TO COLLECT THEIR MONEY.
— The individual mandate’s regulation of the uninsured as a class is, in fact, particularly divorced from any link to existing commercial activity.” (Pg. 25)
* IT’S ALSO PARTICULARLY DIVORCED FROM ANY LINK TO CONSTITUTIONALITY.
— “The mandate primarily affects healthy, often young adults who are less likely to need significant health care and have other priorities for spending their money. It is precisely because these individuals, as an actuarial class, incur relatively low healthcare costs that the mandate helps counter the effect of forcing insurance companies to cover others who impose greater costs than their premiums are allowed to reflect.” (Pg. 25)
* WELL, AT LEAST UNTIL THOSE HEALTHY, OFTEN YOUNG ADULTS CHOOSE *NOT* TO PURCHASE INSURANCE. WHAT THEN, MR. SMARTY PANTS? AND NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT YOU JUST SO CASUALLY MENTION THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL BE *FORCED* TO COVER ANYONE, AS IF THAT’S NOT COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL (WHICH, OF COURSE, IT IS).
— “The Government regards it as sufficient to trigger Congress’s authority that almost all those who are uninsured will, at some unknown point in the future, engage in a health care transaction. Asserting that “[t]here is no temporal limitation in the Commerce Clause,” the Government argues that because “[e]veryone subject to this regulation is in or will be in the health care market,” they can be “regulated in advance.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 109 (Mar. 27, 2012).” (Pg. 26)
* NO, THEY CAN’T BE REGULATED IN ADVANCE…OR DURING…OR AFTER…UNLESS SOMEONE IS NOT HONORING THEIR END OF AN AGREED-UPON CONTRACT. ONLY THEN DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE A ROLE HERE, AND THEN ONLY ONE OF PROTECTING/GUARANTEEING LEGAL RIGHTS. NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE GOVERNMENT EMPOWERED TO DICTATE HOW ANY COMPANIES ARE SUPPOSED TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS, AND/OR WHO THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT AS CUSTOMERS, AND/OR WHAT PEOPLE MUST BUY.
— “The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent.” (Pg. 26)
* AND THE PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS MAY DICTATE THE CONDUCT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER FINDS NO SUPPORT IN THE CONSTITUTION (AKA THE ULTIMATE PRECEDENT).
— “We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity.” (Pg. 26)
* CONGRESS CAN ANTICIPATE ALL THEY WANT…BUT THAT DOESN’T GIVE THEM ANY POWERS BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION’S VERY FEW ENUMERATED ONES.
— “But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.” (Pg. 26)
* HOW ABOUT, INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON WHAT *YOU* HAVE PERMITTED CONGRESS TO DO, YOU INSTEAD (PROPERLY) FOCUS ON WHAT THE *CONSTITUTION* PERMITS CONGRESS TO DO??? (HERE’S A HINT: IT’S ONLY THE VERY FEW THINGS THAT IT *REQUIRES* CONGRESS TO DO.)
— “Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today.” (Pg. 26)
* BOOM! ONCE AGAIN…CASE CLOSED! (AND BY THE WAY, CONGRESS IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DIRECT ANYONE TO PURCHASE ANYTHING IN *ANY* MARKET…AT *ANY* TIME.)
— “The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.” (Pg. 26)
* NOR IS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE A LICENSE TO REGULATE AN INDIVIDUAL AT *ANY* TIME, SIMPLY BECAUSE CONGRESS WANTS TO REGULATE SOMEONE. WHERE IS THE INDIVIDUAL MENTIONED IN “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”???
— “The Government argues that the individual mandate can be sustained as a sort of exception to this rule, because health insurance is a unique product. According to the Government, upholding the individual mandate would not justify mandatory purchases of items such as cars or broccoli because, as the Government puts it, “[h]ealth insurance is not purchased for its own sake like a car or broccoli; it is a means of financing health-care consumption and covering universal risks.” Reply Brief for United States 19. But cars and broccoli are no more purchased for their “own sake” than health insurance. They are purchased to cover the need for transportation and food.” (Pg. 27)
* HOW IN THE HELL DOES THIS CRAP NOT GET THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS LAUGHED RIGHT OUT OF THE COURTROOM??? I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD EVEN WASTE THE TIME TO REBUT THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT, AND NOT JUST CALL THEM OUT FOR BEING ABSOLUTE IDIOTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORAMUSES. AND EVEN *IF* HEALTH INSURANCE WERE UNIQUE (IT’S NOT) BECAUSE “IT IS A MEANS OF FINANCING HEALTH-CARE CONSUMPTION AND COVERING UNIVERSAL RISKS”…SO WHAT? WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS SPECIAL POWERS TO REGULATE “UNIQUE” PRODUCTS ANYMORE THAN “NON-UNIQUE” ONES???
— “The Government says that health insurance and healthcare financing are “inherently integrated.”” (Pg. 27)
* WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT…ACCEPTING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PREMISE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE FINANCING IS THE REAL FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM HERE.
— “But that does not mean the compelled purchase of the first is properly regarded as a regulation of the second. No matter how “inherently integrated” health insurance and health care consumption may be, they are not the same thing: They involve different transactions, entered into at different times, with different providers. And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away. The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lacking to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Government.” (Pg. 27)
* BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH…WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION??? YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RULING ON TIMEFRAMES AND CONNECTIONS OF SUBSEQUENT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY…YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE RULING ON CONSTITUTIONALITY!
— “The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”” (Pg. 27)
* UMM…DUH. NOR CAN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SUSTAIN *ANY* LAW WITH *ANY* MANDATES FORCING *ANY* INDIVIDUALS TO DO ANYTHING… EXCEPT TO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE LIBERTY OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
— “The Government next contends that Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact the individual mandate because the mandate is an “integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation” – the guaranteed-issue and community-rating insurance reforms.” (Pg. 27-28)
* JUST THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ARGUING IN FAVOR OF A “COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF ECONOMIC REGULATION” SHOULD BE THE BIGGEST RED FLAG IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC.
— “Under this argument, it is not necessary to consider the effect that an individual’s inactivity may have on interstate commerce; it is enough that Congress regulate commercial activity in a way that requires regulation of inactivity to be effective.” (Pg. 28)
* UMM…NO. IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY (OR ANY INACTIVITY) OF ANY INDIVIDUAL AT ANY TIME WHATSOEVER…UNLESS THAT ACTIVITY INFRINGES UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL – AND ONLY THEN.
— “The power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers enumerated in the Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 18, vests Congress with authority to enact provisions “incidental to the [enumerated] power, and conducive to its beneficial exercise,” McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 418.” (Pg. 28)
* RIGHT…BUT ANY PROVISION ENACTED MUST BE *IN SUPPORT OF* THE ENUMERATED POWERS, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY HERE IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, AS THERE IS NO ENUMERATED POWER WHICH ALLOWS CONGRESS TO REQUIRE CITIZENS TO BUY ANYTHING AT ALL, INCLUDING HEALTH INSURANCE.
— “Although the Clause gives Congress authority to “legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the constitution,” it does not license the exercise of any “great substantive and independent power[s]” beyond those specifically enumerated. Id., at 411, 421. Instead, the Clause is “‘merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those [powers] otherwise granted are included in the grant.'” Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U. S. 234, 247 (1960) (quoting VI Writings of James Madison 383 (G. Hunt ed.1906)).” (Pg. 28)
* AGAIN, HOW CAN YOU CITE THESE FACTS, AND YET END UP GETTING THIS RULING SO VERY WRONG? AND BY THE WAY, THERE IS NO “VAST MASS OF INCIDENTAL POWERS” BEYOND THOSE THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED…ANY LAWS PASSED IN SUPPORT OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS CANNOT (CONSTITUTIONALLY, AT LEAST) INCREASE GOVERNMENT’S POWER…THEY ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO FACILITATE THE EXECUTION OF THEIR ALREADY GRANTED POWERS. THEY DO NOT AT ALL INCLUDE EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL THINGS THAT CONGRESS WANTS TO DO THAT HAVE NO BASIS IN THE CONSTITUTION. IF YOU JUST TAKE A STEP BACK AND RECOGNIZE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BE INVOLVED IN PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN YOU WILL QUICKLY REALIZE THAT EVERYTHING THAT FORMS THE BASIS FOR OBAMACARE IS COMPLETELY INVALID, CONSTITUTIONALLY.
— “As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.” We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.'”” (Pg. 28)
* WELL THEN, YOU’VE BEEN WRONG. WHY NOT TRY BEING DEFERENTIAL TO THE CONSTITUTION? THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE ONLY ALLOWS CONGRESS TO PASS LAWS THAT ARE “proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” WHY DO YOU INSIST ON IGNORING THAT NOTHING IN OBAMACARE IS IN ANY WAY REQUIRED/ALLOWED BY ANY OF THE “FOREGOING POWERS”, OR ANY OTHER POWERS ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION???
— “But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution.” (Pg. 28)
* AS IF THAT’S THE ONLY REASON TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL! THE SIMPLE BASIS FOR DISALLOWING A LAW MUST BE WHETHER IT’S SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OF GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. IF NOT, THEN IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL…PERIOD. THE “STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT” IS CERTAINLY NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
— “Such laws, which are not “consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution,” McCulloch, supra, at 421, are not “proper [means] for carrying into Execution” Congress’s enumerated powers. Rather, they are, “in the words of The Federalist, ‘merely acts of usurpation’ which ‘deserve to be treated as such.'”” (Pg. 28-29)
* THAT DOESN’T ONLY APPLY TO LAWS WHICH UNDERMINE THE “STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT”…IT ALSO APPLIES TO ANY AND EVERY LAW WHICH UNDERMINES THE STRICT LIMITS THE CONSTITUTION PLACES ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER. HOW EASILY YOU FORGET (OR JUST IGNORE?) THE FACT THAT THE DEFAULT POSITION OF GOVERNMENT IS AN *ABSENCE* OF POWER; THEREFORE, CONGRESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL THAT IT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO DO…REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH “PRECEDENT” EXISTS THAT SERVED TO EXCUSE PRIOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
— “see also New York, 505 U. S., at 177; Comstock, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 5) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) (“It is of fundamental importance to consider whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are compromised by the assertion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause…”).” (Pg. 29)
* THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS ANY *ADDITIONAL* POWER…IT MERELY AFFORDS IT THE ABILITY TO PASS LAWS THAT ALLOW IT TO EXECUTE ITS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS. THAT’S ALL. SO, IF CONGRESS TRIES TO DO ANYTHING THAT COMPROMISES STATE SOVEREIGNTY – THAT ISN’T ALREADY SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AS AN INSTANCE IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GRANTED SUPREMACY OVER THE STATES – THEN IT IS AUTOMATICALLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE.
— “Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms.” (Pg. 29)
* WELL…DUH. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THE PRINCIPLES YOU CITED…IT’S BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE (AND THUS ALLOW) THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE/ALLOW CONGRESS TO FORCE ANYONE TO BUY ANYTHING AT ALL. SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS? THIS RULING SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO MORE THAN MAYBE 5 SENTENCES LONG.
— “Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power.” (Pg. 29)
* HA! IF ONLY!!! IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN WE WOULDN’T BE IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION WHERE MOST OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SINCE MOST OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT NOW DOES IS OUTSIDE THE SEVERELY LIMITED SCOPE OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “For example, we have upheld provisions…criminalizing bribes involving organizations receiving federal funds, Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 602, 605 (2004)” (Pg. 29)
* THE ONLY ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE BEING PAID TO PROVIDE GOODS/SERVICES DIRECTLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE VALID GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, SUCH AS THE MILITARY. ANY OTHER HANDING OUT OF FEDERAL FUNDS IS SIMPLY NOT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
— “The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.” (Pg. 29)
* WRONG…THERE IS NO ENUMERATED POWER INVOLVED HERE WHATSOEVER.
— “Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Act’s insurance reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.” (Pg. 230)
* EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS “NECESSARY” TO THE ACT’S INSURANCE REFORMS, IT’S STILL COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THUS SO IS THE ENTIRE ACT. *ANY* EXPANSION OF FEDERAL POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF *EVEN ONE* INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IS ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “The Government relies primarily on our decision in Gonzales v. Raich. In Raich, we considered “comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market” in marijuana. 545 U. S., at 22. Certain individuals sought an exemption from that regulation on the ground that they engaged in only intrastate possession and consumption. We denied any exemption, on the ground that marijuana is a fungible commodity, so that any marijuana could be readily diverted into the interstate market. Congress’s attempt to regulate the interstate market for marijuana would therefore have been substantially undercut if it could not also regulate intrastate possession and consumption.” (Pg. 30)
* HOW ABOUT JUST BACKING THE HELL UP, AND FOCUSING ON – AND APPLYING, FOR ONCE – THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION?! WHICH IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. THIS ALSO EXTENDS TO CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE… INDIVIDUALS ARE (OR SHOULD BE) FREE TO ENGAGE IN TRADE WITH ONE ANOTHER WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERING BY PUTTING OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF FREE TRADE. “TO REGULATE” MEANS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE’S FOLLOWING THE RULES AND NOT CHEATING ONE ANOTHER BY VIOLATING CONTRACTS. WHERE THE GOVERNMENT’S POWER TO REGULATE COMES INTO PLAY IS IF ONE OF THOSE TRADING PARTIES VIOLATES THE AGREED UPON TERMS OF THE TRADE. CONGRESS DOESN’T GET TO CONTROL PRICES/WAGES/ETC., REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COURT SAYS…AND ESPECIALLY NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF “INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR”.
— “Accordingly, we recognized that “Congress was acting well within its authority” under the Necessary and Proper Clause even though its “regulation ensnare[d] some purely intrastate activity.” Id., at 22; see also Perez, 402 U. S., at 154. Raich thus did not involve the exercise of any “great substantive and independent power,” McCulloch, supra, at 411, of the sort at issue here. Instead, it concerned only the constitutionality of “individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme.” Raich, supra, at 23 (emphasis added).” (Pg. 30)
* FIRST OF ALL, WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIMITING CONGRESS’ POWER, NOT LOOKING FOR WAYS TO EXPAND IT. AND IF YOU CONCEDE HERE THAT WHAT’S AT ISSUE HERE WITH OBAMACARE IS THE EXERCISE OF A “GREAT SUBSTANTIVE AND INDEPENDENT POWER”, THEN HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU THEN END UP RULING IN FAVOR OF SUCH OBVIOUS AND RECOGNIZED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY???
— “Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a “necessary and proper” component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate. Accord, post, at 4–16 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting).” (Pg. 30)
* BOOM – CASE CLOSED…AGAIN! IF THE MANDATE CAN’T BE UPHELD AS “NECESSARY AND PROPER”, THEN IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE UPHELD AS A TAX. YES, CONGRESS’ POWER TO TAX IS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED, BUT WHAT THEY *USE* THOSE COLLECTED TAXES FOR IS WHAT’S TRULY and FUNDAMENTALLY CRUCIAL. AND THAT IS WELL WITHIN THE COURT’S PURVIEW TO CONSIDER. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW IS NOT JUST DEPENDENT UPON HOW IT GOT PASSED OR HOW CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT CAN BE DEFINED, BUT (AND THIS IS THE MOST CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER…THE *ONLY* THING TO CONSIDER, ACTUALLY) IS WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED (AND THUS ALLOWED) TO EVEN DO WHAT THE LAW SAYS. AND MAY I REMIND YOU YET AGAIN…*NOWHERE* IN THE CONSTITUTION IS IT WRITTEN THAT CONGRESS IS REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE, OR TO FORCE ANYONE TO BUY ANYTHING…EVER.
— “That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.” (Pg. 31)
* YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG HERE…ONCE IT’S BEEN DETERMINED THAT IT’S IN ANY WAY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEN THAT’S IT…CASE CLOSED. YES, CONGRESS HAS AN ENUMERATED POWER TO “LAY AND COLLECT TAXES”, BUT ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS. AND, ONCE AGAIN, HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE IS NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE ENUMERATED POWERS, SO THIS ACT *MUST* GO DOWN IN FLAMES.
— “The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.” (Pg. 31)
* AGAIN, ONCE IT’S BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEN NO ALTERNATE ARGUMENT CAN SAVE IT. AND YES, CONGRESS CAN TAX *ALMOST* ANYTHING, BUT NOT NON-ACTIVITY. AND – AGAIN, MOST IMPORTANTLY -WHAT THE TAXES ARE TO BE USED FOR IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. CONGRESS CAN’T JUST ARGUE FOR THEIR POWER TO COLLECT A TAX (WELL, THEY CAN, BUT IT *SHOULD* FALL ON DEAF EARS)…THEY ALSO SHOULD HAVE TO CITE WHICH ENUMERATED POWER THEY’RE COLLECTING THE TAX IN SUPPORT OF. AND DON’T FORGET THAT SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, THEN *ANY* ARGUMENT FOR USING THEIR FEW ENUMERATED POWERS TO GIVE THEM OTHERS THAT AREN’T ENUMERATED IS A NON-STARTER…AS IS ANY ARGUMENT FOR EXPANDING THEIR POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIBERTY OF *ANY* INDIVIDUAL. THE ONLY LIMIT TO THE LIBERTY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL IS THE LINE AT WHICH IT WOULD INFRINGE UPON THE LIBERTY OF ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL. THAT’S IT. AND THAT CERTAINLY DOES NOT EMPOWER CONGRESS TO CONFISCATE PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR MANDATE ANY PURCHASES, IN AN EFFORT TO ALLEVIATE ANY *ALREADY* UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING.
— “The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.” (Pg. 31)
* AND YOU HAVE THUS PROVEN THAT YOU ARE UNFIT TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. IF ANY “MEANING” VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, THEN THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND MUST THEREFORE BE STRUCK DOWN. AND WHICH OF THESE TWO “MEANINGS” *DOESN’T* VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ANYWAY??? WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE? IT DOESN’T, SO THIS ENTIRE ACT IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. INSTEAD OF READING “WELL ESTABLISHED” COURT PRECEDENT, WHY NOT TRY READING…OH, I DON’T KNOW… MAYBE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF?!
— “Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830).” (Pg. 31)
* INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL IS IRRELEVANT…IF THERE’S A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEN IT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO STAND. REMEMBER, THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, SO ANYTHING THAT EXPANDS GOVERNMENT POWER – AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIBERTY OF EVEN ONE INDIVIDUAL – IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. REGARDLESS OF WHAT FORMER JUSTICES HAVE SAID, WE SHOULD NEVER GO OUT OF OUR WAY TO SAVE LAWS THAT ARE IN ANY WAY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, JUST BECAUSE CONGRESS PASSED THEM.
— “Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).” (Pg. 31)
* YET ANOTHER CLUELESS JUSTICE WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND FAVORED EXPANDING GOVERNMENT POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. YOUR “PLAIN DUTY” IS TO RULE ANY ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT ATTEMPTS TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING FOR WHICH IT HAS NO ENUMERATED POWER. YOU HAVE NEGLECTED YOUR “PLAIN DUTY”, AS HAVE YOUR FOREBEARS JUSTICES HOLMES AND STORY. FOR YOU TO CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH OF THEIR IDIOCY, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY SAID IT, IS NO EXCUSE FOR COMPLETELY IGNORING WHAT WAS SAID BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEMSELVES IN RELATION TO ITS STRICT LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER.
— “The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.” (Pg. 31)
* RIGHT…AND NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO FORCE ANYONE TO BUY *ANYTHING* AT ALL. THUS, THIS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATELY STRUCK DOWN. AND YES, IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
— “After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance.” (Pg. 32)
* DIFFERENT WORDS, BUT SAME RESULT…NOT AN ENUMERATED POWER, SO COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute – that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance – is a reasonable one.” (Pg. 32)
* WELL, IF THAT’S THE CASE, THEN THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE CONCEIVABLY COME UP WITH A MILLION DIFFERENT “ALTERNATIVE READINGS”, UNTIL THEY FINALLY PRESENTED ONE THAT THE COURT WOULD ACCEPT! AND WHY DO INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS NOT GET THAT TYPE OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE COURT? WHY IS THAT ONLY RESERVED FOR ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT? WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT CONGRESS IS IN ANY WAY SUPERIOR TO, OR MORE ENTITLED THAN, INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS? AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON THE BELIEF THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS PARAMOUNT AND SUPREME, AND THAT GOVERNMENT IS SUBSERVIENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
AND YES, GOVERNMENT’S POWER TO IMPOSE TAXES IS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED…BUT WHAT THEY *DO* WITH THOSE TAX DOLLARS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT! AND IF THEY SPEND THAT MONEY ON THINGS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS (ENUMERATED POWERS), THEN THAT IS A DIRECT, BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. BUT, I GUESS MAYBE IT’S NOT ALL THAT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE WHO THINKS CONGRESS IS MORE ENTITLED THAN INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS WOULD HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THAT.
— “Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See Sec. 5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition – not owning health insurance – that triggers a tax – the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.” (Pg. 32)
* WELL, IT MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN…IF THE CONSTITUTION IN ANY WAY SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED CONGRESS TO SPEND MONEY ON HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE! WHICH, OF COURSE, IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT. AND THE COURT IS MOST DEFINITELY TASKED WITH THE DUTY OF EXAMINING THE ENTIRETY OF ANY FEDERAL LAWS, AND WEIGHING THEM AGAINST THE STRICT LIMITS THE CONSTITUTION PLACES UPON GOVERNMENT. ARTICLE 3, SECTION 2 SAYS “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”. SEE THAT PART I CAPITALIZED? HUH? DO YOU SEE IT?! WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS, GENIUS? GO AHEAD, I’LL WAIT……….
— “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one.” (Pg. 32)
* NO, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY PERMITS CONGRESS TO DO THIS, WHICH IT DOESN’T, SO CONGRESS IS THEREFORE PROHIBITED FROM DOING IT. PERIOD.
— “As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895).” (Pg. 32)
* YOU CAN’T SAVE A STATUTE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALITY! IT’S EITHER CONSTITUTIONAL, OR IT ISN’T. EITHER THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES/ALLOWS CONGRESS TO DO SOMETHING, OR IT DOESN’T. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO ALLOW CONGRESS TO GET AWAY WITH DOING WHATEVER IT WANTS, HOW ABOUT JUST DOING *YOUR* ASSIGNED JOB AND FORCE THEM TO STICK TO THEIR ENUMERATED POWERS???
— “The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.” (Pg. 32)
* HOW ABOUT FOCUSING INSTEAD ON THE “FULL MEASURE OF DEFERENCE” OWED TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, AND TO THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF?! ANY DEFERENCE TO FEDERAL STATUTES IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT IF IT RUNS COUNTER TO THE FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND/OR THE STRICT LIMITS IMPOSED ON GOVERNMENT VIA THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. sec. 5000a(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code.” (Pg. 33)
* YET ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF PREVIOUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENT. ACTUALLY, TWO EXAMPLES…FIRST, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR ANY “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT” FROM CITIZENS, UNLESS IT’S INTENDED TO PAY FOR SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED DUTIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH APPLY TO ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY (SUCH AS THE MILITARY, FOR EXAMPLE).
SECOND, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT DIDN’T WRITE THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, BUT TO JUST LET THIS SLIDE BY AS IF IT’S NOT TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS A COMPLETE DERELICTION OF DUTY ON YOUR PART.
— “This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government. Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017.” (Pg. 33)
* BUT FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO BE SPENT ON WHAT??? THAT’S THE MOST FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT FACTOR TO CONSIDER FOR *ALL* LAWS COMING OUT OF CONGRESS, WHETHER THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON!
— “It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question.” (Pg. 33)
* SO, ONCE AGAIN, CONGRESS GETS TO USE WHATEVER LABELS/ TERMS/MEANINGS/DEFINITIONS/INTERPRETATIONS/ARGUMENTS THAT IT WANTS, AS LONG AS THEY CAN CONVINCE THE COURT TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH OF UTTER UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD MAKE THE *MOST* SENSE? TO BE GUIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION’S SPECIFIC WORDING, NOT “CONGRESS’S CHOICE OF LABEL”!
— “We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax. In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets – for which the licensee had to pay a fee – could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power.” (Pg. 34)
* WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT BEING ALLOWED TO LIMIT ANYONE’S ABILITY TO SELL ANYTHING -LIQUOR AND LOTTERY TICKETS INCLUDED? WHERE IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL FEES UPON ANYONE WHO WANTS TO START A BUSINESS? THIS IS YET ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF HOW YOUR INCREDIBLY EXPANSIVE AND OVERLY PERMISSIVE (TO GOVERNMENT) INTERPRETATION OF “REGULATION” ENABLES THE GOVERNMENT TO HINDER THE ABILITY OF INDIVIDUALS TO PARTICIPATE FREELY IN THE MARKET, AND THUS VIOLATES THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
— “We thus ask whether the shared responsibility payment falls within Congress’s taxing power, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”” (Pg. 34)
* WELL, YOU’RE OBVIOUSLY IGNORING THE “SUBSTANCE AND APPLICATION” IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ONLY THING THAT IT SHOULD BE WEIGHED AGAINST IS CONGRESS’ ENUMERATED POWERS…AND WHEN MEASURED AGAINST THAT, IT COMES NOWHERE NEAR BEING VALID IN ANY WAY.
— “For example, in Drexel Furniture, we focused on three practical characteristics of the so-called tax on employing child laborers that convinced us the “tax” was actually a penalty. … this “tax” was enforced in part by the Department of Labor, an agency responsible for punishing violations of labor laws, not collecting revenue.” (Pg. 35)
* CAN YOU PLEASE DIRECT ME TO THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT DISCUSSES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S POWER TO EVEN MAKE CHILD LABOR LAWS, OR TO EVEN CREATE A DEPARTMENT OF LABOR??? NO? I DIDN’T THINK SO.
— “The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.” (Pg. 35)
* WAIT…FOR *MOST* AMERICANS??? SO MUCH FOR EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, HUH? AND HOW CAN THE AMOUNT BE LESS THAN *FREE* HEALTH CARE ANYWAY?! SINCE THAT’S WHAT WE’VE BEEN TOLD THIS LAW WILL PROVIDE.
— “None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct.” (Pg. 36)
* SO THEN…IT’S COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP.
— “Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage.” (Pg. 36)
* NO, IT’S NOT…IT’S DESIGNED TO DESTROY THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET, IN ORDER TO FORCE EVERYONE TO BE DEPENDENT UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PRODUCT.
— “But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry.” (Pg. 36)
* WHICH, ONCE AGAIN, MAKES THEM COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS NOWHERE IN THAT DOCUMENT IS CONGRESS EMPOWERED TO DO THAT. CONGRESS IS NOT GRANTED A ROLE OF *ACTION* IN THE ECONOMY, BUT RATHER SIMPLY A ROLE OF *PROTECTION* (AND NO, THAT DOES *NOT* INCLUDE CRONY CAPITALISM).
— “Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes, not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking.” (Pg. 36-37)
* OH, MY BAD…I MUST HAVE ALSO MISSED THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO QUIT SMOKING…OR TO ENGAGE IN – OR CEASE – ANY ACTIVITY.
— “Congress could not, for example, expand its authority to impose criminal fines by creating strict liability offenses enforced by the IRS rather than the FBI. But the fact the exaction here is paid like a tax, to the agency that collects taxes – rather than, for example, exacted by Department of Labor inspectors after ferreting out willful malfeasance – suggests that this exaction may be viewed as a tax.” (Pg. 36 – FOOTNOTE)
* I’M SURPRISED YOU DIDN’T JUST SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CREATE A DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, AS “THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR PUNISHING VIOLATIONS OF [INSURANCE] LAWS”.
— “Indeed, “[e]very tax is in some measure regulatory. To some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the activity taxed as compared with others not taxed.” Sonzinsky, supra, at 513.” (Pg. 37)
* WELL, THERE YOU GO…THE VERY FACT THAT IT PRESENTS AN IMPEDIMENT OF ANY KIND TO ACTIVITY MAKES IT UTTERLY AND TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND THE FACT THAT YOU DON’T REALIZE THAT MAKES YOU COMPLETELY UNFIT TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF ANYTHING.
— “That Sec. 5000A seeks to shape decisions about whether to buy health insurance does not mean that it cannot be a valid exercise of the taxing power.” (Pg. 37)
* ACTUALLY, IT MEANS *PRECISELY* THAT…SINCE CONGRESS IS ONLY ALLOWED TO COLLECT TAXES TO FUND ITS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS (NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHAPING OF ANY DECISIONS, BY THE WAY)…AND IF IT’S NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED, THEN IT’S SPECIFICALLY *NOT* ALLOWED.
— “While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful.” (Pg. 37)
* ACTUALLY, ONCE AGAIN, IT MEANS *PRECISELY* THAT…IF YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SOMETHING, THEN FAILING TO DO THAT THING IS – BY DEFINITION – UNLAWFUL. YOU CAN’T REALLY BE THIS STUPID.
— “Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.” (Pg. 37)
* SO, ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY HERE THAT A *LEGALLY* REQUIRED PAYMENT TO THE IRS – AS PUNISHMENT FOR NOT DOING SOMETHING REQUIRED BY LAW – IS *NOT* A “NEGATIVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE”? OR JUST THAT SINCE THERE ARE NO “NEGATIVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES” BEYOND THAT REQUIRED PAYMENT TO THE IRS, THEN THIS IS SOMEHOW OKAY?
— “The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.” (Pg. 37)
* SO, WHAT IF SOMEONE CHOOSES NOT TO OBTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE *NOR* TO MAKE THE REQUIRED PAYMENT TO THE IRS??? WHAT THEN, GENIUS? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS JUST GOING TO ALLOW ANYONE TO GET AWAY SCOT FREE WITH BLATANTLY IGNORING ITS “LEGAL” COMMANDS? IS THAT TRULY WHAT YOU EXPECT US TO GO ALONG WITH HERE?
— “Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71.” (Pg. 37)
* YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WILL MAKE THIS CONSTITUTIONAL, HUH? AND ISN’T THIS THE SAME CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE THAT ESTIMATED OBAMACARE’S TOTAL COST AT UNDER $1 TRILLION…AND THEN LATER – AFTER IT WAS PASSED INTO LAW – MORE THAN DOUBLED THAT ESTIMATE?
— “We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful.” (Pg. 37)
* YEAH, THE ONLY UNLAWFULNESS CONGRESS IS EVER “TROUBLED” BY IS THAT OF OTHERS…WHILE THEY FREELY VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND AGAIN…WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO FOREGO PURCHASING INSURANCE AND PAYING THE FINE? WHAT THEN?
— “That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.” (Pg. 37-38)
* NO, WHAT IT SUGGESTS IS THAT THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THIS LAW IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD.
SO NOW WE’RE BASING LEGAL RULINGS ON “SUGGESTIONS” OR ASSUMPTIONS OF WHAT CONGRESS WAS THINKING…WHAT SOLID JURISPRUDENCE YOU’RE DISPLAYING HERE. CITIZENS MAY ALSO CHOOSE *NOT* TO PAY THE PENALTY/TAX…WHAT THEN? (NOT TO MENTION THAT A “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT” IS A COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED AMONG THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.)
— “The plaintiffs contend that Congress’s choice of language – stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty” – requires reading Sec. 5000A as punishing unlawful conduct, even if that interpretation would render the law unconstitutional.” (Pg. 38)
* YEAH, BECAUSE WE’RE ON SUCH SOLID CONSTITUTIONAL FOOTING UP TO THAT POINT, HUH?
— “In New York v. United States we examined a statute providing that “‘[e]ach State shall be responsible for providing…for the disposal of…low-level radioactive waste.'” 505 U. S., at 169 (quoting 42 U. S. C. 2021c(a)(1)(A)). A State that shipped its waste to another State was exposed to surcharges by the receiving State, a portion of which would be paid over to the Federal Government.” (Pg. 38)
* WELL, SO MUCH FOR STATES RIGHTS…BUT I GUESS THAT’S TO BE EXPECTED, IF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SO EASILY AND BLATANTLY VIOLATED.
— “New York urged us to read the statute as a federal command that the state legislature enact legislation to dispose of its waste, which would have violated the Constitution.” (Pg. 38)
* SO, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT…THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMMANDING A STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION WOULD VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMMANDING INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT DOES NOT???
— “To avoid that outcome, we interpreted the statute to impose only “a series of incentives” for the State to take responsibility for its waste. We then sustained the charge paid to the Federal Government as an exercise of the taxing power. Id., at 169–174. We see no insurmountable obstacle to a similar approach here.” (Pg. 38)
* YOUR IDIOTIC AND BASELESS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS AN INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLE TO LIBERTY…AND TO TAKING YOU SERIOUSLY ON ANY LEGAL MATTERS EVER AGAIN. WHERE AGAIN DOES THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE INCENTIVES OF ANY KIND? OR TO OVERRULE A STATE ON SOMETHING FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO ENUMERATED POWER? OR TO COLLECT TAXES TO PAY FOR ANYTHING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO DO? IF ANY STATUTE CAN BE READ TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL, THEN NO ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION CAN EVER SAVE IT FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALITY…REGARDLESS OF WHAT COURT PRECEDENT SAYS.
— “The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold Sec. 5000A as a tax because Congress did not “frame” it as such. Post, at 17. In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.” (Pg. 39)
* NO, IT MUST BE STRUCK DOWN BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NO ENUMERATED POWER TO DO THOSE THINGS WHICH THEY INTEND TO USE THIS TAX TO PAY FOR! AND BY THE WAY, THE CONSTITUTION ABSOLUTELY DOES *NOT* PERMIT CONGRESS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU INTERPRET THIS STATUTE TO DO, SINCE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT *REQUIRE* CONGRESS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU INTERPRET THIS STATUTE TO DO.
— “An example may help illustrate why labels should not control here. Suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient windows must pay $50 to the IRS. The amount due is adjusted based on factors such as taxable income and joint filing status, and is paid along with the taxpayer’s income tax return. Those whose income is below the filing threshold need not pay.” (Pg. 39)
* THEN IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE (1) – THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY REQUIRE CONGRESS TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY, OR WINDOWS OF ANY KIND, AND (2) – IT VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE MAKES MORE MONEY THAN SOMEONE ELSE DOES NOT MEAN THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED OR BE FORCED TO PICK UP ANYONE ELSE’S SLACK). SO YOUR EXAMPLE IS IN NO WAY ALLOWED…NOR IS ANY TAX BASED UPON SUCH BALONEY, IF IT IS NOT BEING USED TO FUND SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED DUTIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
— “No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congress’s power to tax.” (Pg. 39)
* REALLY? NO ONE??? WAKE UP, NUMBSKULL.
— “That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word “penalty” to describe the payment. Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly “[I]mpos[e] a tax through judicial legislation.” Post, at 25. Rather, it would give practical effect to the Legislature’s enactment.” (Pg. 39)
* THIS MIGHT BE TRUE…IF ANYTHING ELSE YOU SAID BEFORE IT WASN’T COMPLETELY FALSE AND CONSTITUTIONALLY BASELESS.
— “Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Sec. 5000A under the taxing power, and that Sec. 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.” (Pg. 39)
* WELL, IT MIGHT BE, IF THE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS WERE GOING TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED/ALLOWED TO DO…OR IF THEY WEREN’T UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING…OR IF THEY WEREN’T TRYING TO TAKE OVER 1/6TH OF THE U.S. ECONOMY…OR IF THEY WEREN’T TRYING TO DRIVE AN ENTIRE PRIVATE INDUSTRY OUT OF BUSINESS.
— “The “question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise.” Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U. S. 138, 144 (1948).” (Pg. 39-40)
* MAYBE NOT, BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY *DOES* DEPEND ON THE UNDERLYING POWER ACTUALLY…OH, I DON’T KNOW…APPEARING IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! CONGRESS MUST ABSOLUTELY BE ABLE TO ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE (YOU KNOW…THEIR BOSSES?!) ABOUT WHAT THE MONEY WILL BE SPENT ON, AND WHAT ENUMERATED POWER REQUIRES THAT SPENDING. I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT THIS IGNORANCE DIDN’T HAVE PEOPLE MARCHING ON WASHINGTON TO THROW YOU OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE ON YOUR ASS.
— “Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.” (Pg. 40)
* THE HELL YOU SAY!!! OKAY THEN…WHICH *REQUIREMENT* IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THIS TAX GOING TO BE SPENT ON? AND WHICH *REQUIREMENT* IN THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONGRESS TO FORCE ANY CITIZEN TO BUY ANYTHING AT ALL? HMMMM??? GO ON, TAKE YOUR TIME, I’LL WAIT…
— “Soon after the framing, Congress passed a tax on ownership of carriages, over James Madison’s objection that it was an unapportioned direct tax.” (Pg. 40)
* THAT’S BACK WHEN MOST OF WHAT CONGRESS DID WASN’T COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “This Court upheld the tax, in part reasoning that apportioning such a tax would make little sense, because it would have required taxing carriage owners at dramatically different rates depending on how many carriages were in their home State.” (Pg. 40)
* SO, IS THIS WHERE THE DOWNHILL SLIDE AWAY FROM THE CONSTITUTION BEGAN? CONGRESS LOOKING FOR ANY NEW THING TO TAX, SIMPLY TO GET THEIR GREEDY HANDS ON MORE OF OUR MONEY? INSTEAD OF INTRODUCING NEW TAX AFTER NEW TAX, THEY SHOULD INSTEAD FOCUS ON LIMITING THEMSELVES TO THEIR VERY FEW ENUMERATED DUTIES, AND MAYBE ONLY INCREASE EXISTING TAXES WHEN AND IF NECESSARY. OH YEAH, I FORGOT…THAT’S NOT YOUR PROBLEM…IT’S NOT THE COURT’S JOB TO PROTECT US FROM OUR POLITICAL DECISIONS, RIGHT???
AND BY THE WAY, WHAT WAS THE CARRIAGE TAX MONEY USED TO PAY FOR? ACTUAL REQUIRED DUTIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, PER THE ENUMERATED POWERS? FUNNY HOW YOU DON’T MENTION THAT, WHEN IT’S THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE REGARDING ANY FEDERAL TAX!
— “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.” (Pg. 41)
* NOR DOES IT FALL WITHIN ANY ENUMERATED POWER…WHICH MAKES IT – BY DEFINITION – UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ACTUALLY, IT ALSO DOESN’T FALL WITHIN ANY RECOGNIZED CATEGORY OF *ANY* TYPE OF TAX, SINCE IT’S TAXING PEOPLE FOR THE *ABSENCE* OF ACTIVITY.
— “The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances – earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance.” (Pg. 41)
* AND IT REQUIRES INDIVIDUALS TO PAY FOR SOMETHING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, WHICH IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO ANY NOTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. AND SINCE WHEN DOES THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR EARNING MORE INCOME?
— “If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.” (Pg. 41)
* PERHAPS? YA THINK???
— “First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity.” (Pg. 41)
* THE CONSTITUTION ALSO DOES NOT EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE TAXATION ON INACTIVITY. NOR DOES IT EMPOWER CONGRESS TO HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE. WHAT YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING HERE IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY…NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
— “A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution.” (Pg. 41)
* YES, BUT TO WHAT END? ANY TAXES COLLECTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN *ONLY* BE USED TO FUND THOSE FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF TAX IT IS OR HOW IT’S LEVIED/COLLECTED.
— “The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity.” (Pg. 41-42)
* WHAT THE COURT *SHOULD* HOLD IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS US FROM *ANY* FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IF THAT REGULATION FALLS OUTSIDE THE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE COURT *SHOULD* HOLD THAT ANY EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIBERTY OF *EVEN ONE* INDIVIDUAL (LIKE A “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT”, FOR INSTANCE) IS, BY DEFINITION, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.” (Pg. 42)
* BUT THE CONSTITUTION CERTAINLY DID PROMISE THAT GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO – OR SPEND THOSE COLLECTED TAXES ON – ANYTHING AT ALL THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO DO.
— “See Letter from Benjamin Franklin to M. Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789) (“Our new Constitution is now established…but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”).” (Pg. 42)
* SERIOUSLY??? YOU’RE GOING TO QUOTE WHAT’S BASICALLY A JOKE FROM FRANKLIN, AND YET COMPLETELY IGNORE ALL THE OTHER WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDERS THAT *VERY CLEARLY* LAY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION? ALL OF THOSE WRITINGS FROM THE FRAMERS THAT MAKE IT SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT GOVERNMENT IS TO BE STRICTLY LIMITED TO ITS VERY FEW ENUMERATED POWERS, AND IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN ANYTHING BEYOND THEM?
HOW ABOUT YOU SEE FEDERALIST 84, WHEREIN ALEXANDER HAMILTON WENT SO FAR AS TO ARGUE AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF EVEN A BILL OF RIGHTS, BECAUSE “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
OR THIS ONE AGAIN FROM JAMES MADISON: “The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”
WHAT DO YOU THINK THOSE MEAN, GENIUS? I GUARANTEE YOU THEY WERE MORE THAN JUST WITTY OBSERVATIONS ON THE FACTS OF LIFE, SUCH AS FRANKLIN’S ABOVE QUOTE. THEY WERE ABSOLUTE DECLARATIONS OF THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO ONLY THOSE VERY FEW POWERS ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM DOING ANY MORE (OR LESS) THAN THOSE FEW REQUIRED DUTIES.
— “Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority.” (Pg. 42)
* QUESTION: WHAT’S THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY? ANSWER: THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
— “Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance.” (Pg. 42)
* NOOOOO…ITS ANSWER IS SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES CONGRESS TO DO. AND DIRECTING ANYONE TO PURCHASE *ANYTHING* IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED THINGS.
— “Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations.” (Pg. 42)
* NEW OR NOT, IT’S STILL COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHERE IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 DOES IT SAY THAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO ENCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF ANYTHING? CONGRESS’ ONLY USE OF THE TAXING CLAUSE IS *SUPPOSED* TO BE TO COLLECT REVENUE TO FUND ONLY ITS VERY FEW REQUIRED DUTIES…NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
— “Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.” (Pg. 42)
* THIS STATEMENT ALONE SHOULD GET YOU IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY… SERIOUSLY, THIS SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE MARCHING ON WASHINGTON TO DRAG YOU OUT TO BE TARRED AND FEATHERED. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT WHETHER CONGRESS *CAN* EXERCISE ITS TAXING POWER TO ENCOURAGE (A BETTER WORD WOULD BE “FORCE”) THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT IMPORTANT HERE? THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IGNORANT COMMENTS I’VE EVER HEARD, FROM SOMEONE WHO’S SUPPOSED TO BE SMART…AN EXPERT, EVEN!
THE *ONLY* THING THAT MATTERS HERE (OR WITH ANY LAW, FOR THAT MATTER) IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF WHETHER CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED TO DO SOMETHING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED DUTIES, OR NOT. THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CORRECT CHOICE HERE IS…*NOT*.
— “Second, Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits.” (Pg. 42)
* YOU GOT THAT RIGHT…IT’S STRICTLY LIMITED – TO ABSOLUTE NON-EXISTENCE! CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO USE ITS TAXING POWER TO INFLUENCE CONDUCT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. CONGRESS’ ABILITY TO USE ITS TAXING POWER IS SOLELY LIMITED TO RAISING FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE VERY FEW AND NARROWLY-FOCUSED ENUMERATED POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
— “A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority.” (Pg. 42)
* “AT THE TIME”??? FEDERAL AUTHORITY IS NOW, HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND FOREVER SHALL BE STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE CONSTITUTION’S ENUMERATED POWERS…NONE OF WHICH REQUIRE/ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ANY BEHAVIOR, EXCEPT FOR LIMITING THE EXERCISE OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S LIBERTY TO THAT EXACT POINT AT WHICH IT BEGINS TO INFRINGE UPON THE LIBERTY OF ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL. ANY “MOVING SCALE” OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
— “More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures.” (Pg. 42)
* THE *ONLY* THING YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON IN THESE MATTERS IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHATEVER ACTIVITY THE RAISED REVENUE IS BEING SPENT ON. HERE’S ANOTHER QUOTE YOU SHOULD HAVE REFERENCED INSTEAD OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN’S COMMENT ABOUT DEATH AND TAXES: “The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.” – Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 33)
— “We have nonetheless maintained that “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).” (Pg. 42-43)
* YEAH…AND THAT TIME IS AT THE PRECISE MOMENT WHEN THAT SO-CALLED TAX PASSES BEYOND BEING USED TO FUND CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED DUTIES…WHICH IS ALSO THE PRECISE MOMENT AT WHICH IT *BECOMES* PENALIZING! CONGRESS *ONLY* HAS THE “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”…AND THE *ONLY* THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO TO FULFILL THOSE OVERALL RESPONSIBILITIES OF “common Defence and general Welfare” ARE THOSE VERY FEW (AND STRICTLY LIMITED) ENUMERATED POWERS, WHICH ARE ALSO CONVENIENTLY LISTED IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.
— “It remains true, however, that the “‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.'” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)).” (Pg. 43)
* YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG…THE POWER TO TAX IS *ALWAYS* THE POWER TO DESTROY, AS IT TAKES PROPERTY – BY FORCE OF LAW -AWAY FROM INDIVIDUALS. THIS IS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (WHICH IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, IN CASE YOU’VE FORGOTTEN…OH, WHO AM I KIDDING? OF COURSE YOU’VE FORGOTTEN…IF YOU EVER EVEN KNEW IT IN THE FIRST PLACE). THE ENUMERATED POWERS EXIST AS THE VERY FEW SPECIFIC REQUIRED DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT -THE ONLY THINGS IT’S ALLOWED TO DO – IN ORDER TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE AMOUNT AND SCOPE OF THAT DESTRUCTION. THE POWER TO TAX IS INHERENTLY EVIL, AS IT DEPRIVES INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR PROPERTY, ALBEIT FOR THE NECESSARY PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE FOR “the common Defence and general Welfare”. WHICH LEADS US TO ANOTHER FANTASTIC QUOTE THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY CHOSE TO IGNORE: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” – Thomas Paine
— “Third, although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior.” (Pg. 43)
* IN FACT, THE TAXING POWER DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS *ANY* DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR. THE *ONLY* CONTROL CONGRESS HAS OVER INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR AT ALL IS TO PROHIBIT ONE PERSON’S EXERCISE OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY FROM INFRINGING UPON THE LIBERTY OF ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL. THAT’S IT.
— “Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.” (Pg. 43)
* WHAT PART OF “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH REGULATING THE ACTIVITIES OF INDIVIDUALS?! THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS SPECIFICALLY AND PURPOSEFULLY *NOT* THAT EXPANSIVE, AS THAT WOULD RUN CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
AND WHAT PART OF “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO DEPRIVE *ANYONE* OF THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? UNLESS PEOPLE ARE SUBJECT TO ACTUAL PHYSICAL IMPRISONMENT, WHY WOULD THEY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES AND/OR PROPERTY?
— “By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more.” (Pg. 43)
* PRECISELY! THAT IS THE *ONLY* AUTHORITY CONGRESS HAS UNDER THE TAXING POWER. HOWEVER, CONGRESS IS ADDITIONALLY PROHIBITED FROM SPENDING THOSE COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON ACTIVITIES WHICH CONGRESS HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO DO.
— “If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation – especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose – can impose.” (Pg. 43)
* THE GOVERNMENT ALSO HAS NO POWER TO COMPEL ANYONE TO PURCHASE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, NOR TO REQUIRE THAT ANYONE PAY A TAX SIMPLY FOR NOT PURCHASING SOMETHING. YOU *SAY* YOU DON’T MAKE LIGHT OF THE SEVERE BURDEN THAT TAXATION CAN IMPOSE, AND YET YOUR ENTIRE RULING ACTUALLY COMPLETELY IGNORES THAT BURDEN…AS WELL AS THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SPENDING COLLECTED TAX DOLLARS ON THINGS OUTSIDE THE VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
ALSO, ONCE AGAIN…WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT TAXES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE ACTIVITY OF INDIVIDUALS???
— “But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” (Pg. 43-44)
* OH, SO NOW GOVERNMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO LEVY TAXES ON *CHOICES*, NOT JUST ACTIVITY??? MAYBE THE PRO-LIFERS SHOULD ADOPT THIS APPROACH IN ORDER TO BYPASS THAT *OTHER* EGREGIOUS RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT, ROE V. WADE…JUST ENACT A GARGANTUAN TAX ON PEOPLE WHO HAVE ABORTIONS, IN ORDER TO SIMPLY *ENCOURAGE* THEM TO NOT MAKE THE CHOICE TO KILL THEIR BABIES IN THE WOMB?!
— “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.” (Pg. 44)
* NO, IT MOST CERTAINLY MAY NOT. TO EMPOWER CONGRESS WITH THE ABILITY TO LEVY A TAX ON THE *ABSENCE* OF ACTIVITY OPENS THE DOOR TO UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT POWER AND CONTROL OVER THE INDIVIDUAL…WHICH IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
— “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” (Pg. 44)
* NO, THE CONSTITUTION DOES *NOT* PERMIT SUCH A TAX, AS THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS ONE OF CONGRESS’ ENUMERATED POWERS. AND YES, IT MOST CERTAINLY *IS* THE ROLE OF THE COURT TO RULE NOT ONLY ON NARROW PORTIONS OF LAWS (SUCH AS JUST THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE), BUT ON THEIR *OVERALL* CONSTITUTIONALITY…AND, ONCE AGAIN, NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS IN ANY WAY ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE. NOR DOES IT SAY THAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO FORCE ANYONE TO BUY ANYTHING, NOR TO ENCOURAGE OR RESTRICT ANY INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY AT ALL, SHORT OF PRESERVING THE BOUNDS OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL’S LIBERTY.
Okay, I think you get the point by now. And now you see why I left in the “shouting”. Like I said at the beginning, the government is only allowed to do what the constitution requires it to do…no more, no less. Anything else is simply not the government’s job. Just imagine how much better things would be if we had judges who actually knew and understood that the purpose of the constitution is to limit government, in favor of individual liberty…NOT the other way around.
And just imagine if we had a presidential candidate who was willing to run a campaign based solely on that fundamental truth: IF IT’S NOT ENUMERATED, THEN IT MUST BE ELIMINATED. I think the groundswell of support that candidate would receive would be overwhelming. Plus, you’d have the added benefit of seeing the heads of liberals and members of the media virtually explode. That alone would be worth the effort, don’t you think?
–first written on 09 Dec 2013