Can Congress Mandate Weight Watchers?

[RDD_1210]

You will be fined.

http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

Section 1501, begin around page 145.

Thanks, but you should have kept reading...

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure."

That does not mean you will not be subject to civil, administrative, or tax law prosecution and punishment, does it? Nice of you to miss the entire point of having a mandate and enforcing it through the IRS though, it proves you have your head up the DNC donkey's ass.

Similar to how you missed the point by trying to compare requiring everyone to own a tree house?

 

[boedicca]

Wow. What a succinct and poignant display of liberty destroying Statist attitudes.

 

[GetdClu]

And I'm sure we can all believe the govt, can't we?????

BTW, CrusaderFrank...

Under the broad reading of the "Good and Welfare" Clause, Congress can order you to Weight Watchers -- or Jenny Craig.

It's the "General Welfare Clause," and it's been misinterpreted for decades. Please see Publius Huldah's great exhortation on this important piece in the Constitution here:

http : // publiushuldah . wordpress . com / category / general-welfare-clause /​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks, but you should have kept reading...

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure."

That does not mean you will not be subject to civil, administrative, or tax law prosecution and punishment, does it? Nice of you to miss the entire point of having a mandate and enforcing it through the IRS though, it proves you have your head up the DNC donkey's ass.

Similar to how you missed the point by trying to compare requiring everyone to own a tree house?

You don't think Congress can mandate that everyone buy a tree house? Why not, you think they can do everything else, what puts tree houses outside their purview?

 

[Moonglow]

U can lose the weight without weight watchers, u can't heal urself with a needed operation done by urself. There is a difference.

 

[ShackledNation]

There should be absolutely no argument here. No branch of government has the legitimate authority or power to mandate that obese people participate in weight watchers or any other service, for their own good or not. Period.

 

[dblack]

There should be absolutely no argument here. No branch of government has the legitimate authority or power to mandate that obese people participate in weight watchers or any other service, for their own good or not. Period.

It is more than a little disturbing that so many of us are comfortable with the idea of unlimited government. These people in the video aren't fringe. Most people aren't even aware of the basic concepts of constitutionally limited government. And all too often those who are, are dismissive of it, as though it's a quaint, nostalgic notion of wingnuts. Freedom may be in for a rough road ahead.

 

[Moonglow]

,,and to promte the safety and general welfare of the nation

 

[saveliberty]

Mandate Weight Watchers and fine everyone who doesn't join through their income tax return. I thought you already knew that?

 

[Cimerian]

Let's see. The Feds control food stamps. The Feds now control medical care. Gee if food causes med care to increase do you think they are going to control it?

 

[dblack]

,,and to promte the safety and general welfare of the nation

How safe and well off does it make you feel to have the essentials of life controlled by a central authority? Because that's what's going down.

I find it sadly ironic, that often the people cheering the loudest for these developments share my suspicion of greedy, monied interests and their desire to control people. But implementing these kinds of programs gives them exactly the leverage point they need to satisfy their lust for power and wealth.

 

[percysunshine]

There should be absolutely no argument here. No branch of government has the legitimate authority or power to mandate that obese people participate in weight watchers or any other service, for their own good or not. Period.

True, but they could get the TSA to weigh everyone at the airport and announce the number with a bullhorn.

 

[ShackledNation]

,,and to promte the safety and general welfare of the nation

The general welfare clause refers to intent of laws, not laws themselves. Government may only exercise enumerated powers with the intention of "promoting the safety and general welfare of the nation." Congress has the power to declare war only if Congress has the intentions definied in the general welfare clause. It cannot declare war with the intention of political gain.

If the general welfare clause really means what people claim it does today, the entire constitution is meaningless and redundant. There would be no purpose for enumerated powers, for the general welfare clause would be the only necessary line of the constitution when referring to government authority. Government would have unlimited authority, and could force us to do anything so long as they claimed it was all "for our own good."

Brilliantly put by C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 

[saveliberty]

,,and to promte the safety and general welfare of the nation

Ah yes, the great liberal misinterpretation rears its head once more. Well genius, that was written much, much earlier than the income tax amendment was added. So do you think the authors put that clause in there and then forgot to fund it?

 

[Political Junky]

Obviously, one has the right to stay fat.

 

[daveman]

Why do some people who call themselves liberals have such utter contempt for liberty?

 

[eots]

LISTEN...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55kZRSG2sOQ]YouTube - ‪The Ultimate Red Pill Will Break Your Trance!‬‏[/ame]

 

[chanel]

Obviously, one has the right to stay fat.

Yes they do. They have the right to eat Twinkies or the right to eat lettuce. They have the right to smoke, drink, and have unprotected sex. They have the right to get tattoos, and not brush their teeth. Whether we like or dislike anyone else's lifestyle is irrelevent.

This is a very slippery slope. Mandatory physicals; mandatory treatment; mandatory drugs. Scary, scary shit.

 

[Two Thumbs]

,,and to promte the safety and general welfare of the nation

Promote, not force.

moran

 

[RDD_1210]

That does not mean you will not be subject to civil, administrative, or tax law prosecution and punishment, does it? Nice of you to miss the entire point of having a mandate and enforcing it through the IRS though, it proves you have your head up the DNC donkey's ass.

Similar to how you missed the point by trying to compare requiring everyone to own a tree house?

You don't think Congress can mandate that everyone buy a tree house? Why not, you think they can do everything else, what puts tree houses outside their purview?

Because the case can be made why everyone should have health insurance. Can the same be said for a requirement to buy a tree house? Are you so simple minded that you can only think in simple terms and can't separate issues and look at each on a case-by-case basis?

If congress one day said everyone must buy a tree house, I would be against that, why? Because it's a dumb idea that has no merit. I can understand however the reasoning behind the insurance mandate which is why I'm not getting worked up over it. You on the other hand are against something which will help us now in fear of some ridiculous scenario that you think might happen one day.