What CAN'T the federal government require you to purchase?

[antagon]

It most certainly was intended to be the law of the land. The law of the land as far as the federal government is concerned anyway. If the constitution isn't what prevent tyranny, what does? Are you getting the theme yet? No one can answer the question I've asked because everyone keeps going back to what government CAN do rather than coming up with what they CAN'T. Probably because the later is a lot harder if you believe mandating what people must purchase is constitutional.

the constitution is the charter and law of government, bern, not the land. the law of the land is a power that the constitution enumerated to the congress. the u.s.c. is what they came up with. the bill of rights lays out what the government cant do, if that is what you're on about, read that.

You have to be able to separate your rationale from the subject matter. I am simply applying the rationale to another scenarios. Your interpretation renders the mandate in of itself irrelevant. I am trying to get you to see beyond the subject matter. To do that you have to apply your logic to other scenarios. And the logic has been that the penalty for violation of the law is what make the law constitutional.

i dunno what youre talking about with this separation of matter thing.

if you look at the specific case of the h/c mandate, the tax code's been changed so that if you dont have a certain type of insurance you pay 2.5% of your income in additional tax up to a certain amount.

whether you call it a 'law' or a 'mandate' or 'penalty' or a 'responsibility' as the bill does - the tax code is specifically what it is. could you maybe benefit from separating the semantics from your rationale?

so, if we're settled on the specifics of the healthcare debate, when you say that this is a slippery-slope where government can do anything, i say that's far fetched. the bill of rights makes it so that we can rap freely on USMB. however...the fcc can regulate it, congress could conceivably levy taxes on internet use or internet communication or tax memberships in online communities or keystrokes, but we vote and/or run for congress.

the answer for the 5th or 6th time is that we can vote. that is our constitutional right, and the mechanism through which we could change things about our government that we dont like. there it is. the answer that you have been searching for. in the light.

case in point: prohibition: not a constitutional court override, but a voter override. voting: your only answer. suffrage: the only way.

\ˈvōt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English (Scots), from Latin votum vow, wish — more at vow
Date: 15th century

1 a : a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office

answer:ˈvōt

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vote

 

[Bern80]

the constitution is the charter and law of government, bern, not the land. the law of the land is a power that the constitution enumerated to the congress. the u.s.c. is what they came up with. the bill of rights lays out what the government cant do, if that is what you're on about, read that.

The Constituition has another section however detailing what government CAN do. The guys that wrote this weren't idiots. They figured out it would be a lot easier to simply grant the government specific powers as opposed to try and imagine and get down on paper everything they [did not[/i] want them to be able to do. This is article 1. Section 8. Anything not in this section the legislature can't do and is left to the states and tell people what they must privately purchase is not in there.

i dunno what youre talking about with this separation of matter thing.

You're right. This is what I keep saying. When the same argument is stated in a different context it indeed makes zero sense.

if you look at the specific case of the h/c mandate, the tax code's been changed so that if you dont have a certain type of insurance you pay 2.5% of your income in additional tax up to a certain amount.

whether you call it a 'law' or a 'mandate' or 'penalty' or a 'responsibility' as the bill does - the tax code is specifically what it is. could you maybe benefit from separating the semantics from your rationale?

There is no semantics. The law is you must purchase health insurance. The penalty for not doing so is a tax. My point is forget about the penalty. Doesn't requiring people to buy something, in of itself, have to be constitutional?

so, if we're settled on the specifics of the healthcare debate, when you say that this is a slippery-slope where government can do anything, i say that's far fetched. the bill of rights makes it so that we can rap freely on USMB. however...the fcc can regulate it, congress could conceivably levy taxes on internet use or internet communication or tax memberships in online communities or keystrokes, but we vote and/or run for congress.

I ask again why is it far fetched? I encourage you to use your imagination here. If you think congress via the constitution has the authority to make you purchase something, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, WHAT CAN"T THEY MAKE YOU DO? Think of the most ridiculous thing you can come up with. The thing that you despise with every fiber of your being and know it would be an infringement on your freedom and a power the framers never intended for government to have. That is why i say forget the subject matter. Because if you think this is okay and should be allowed there WILL come a day when the above becomes true for you and you will have no legal standing to say government can't do that to you. They will turnaround and say you said (via your voting) that we have the constitutional authority to make you purchase health insurance. What legal case do you possibly think you have that prevents from be able to (insert most objectionable thing you can think of here) and collect a tax for non-compliance.

the answer for the 5th or 6th time is that we can vote. that is our constitutional right, and the mechanism through which we could change things about our government that we dont like. there it is. the answer that you have been searching for. in the light.

case in point: prohibition: not a constitutional court override, but a voter override. voting: your only answer. suffrage: the only way.

That is not how the system is intended to work. It was not meant to allow congress to pass whatever laws they felt like, constitutional or not, and hope the voters or the supreme court change it after the fact. The Constitution grants the federal legislature authority over specific areas. if it not mentioned then they can't do it. i.e yes they can regulate interstate commerce. They CAN NOT create interstate commerce.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, I appreciate your passion if not your common sense for the topic. The SCOTUS will most likely find the bill just peachy, but if they don't, the ruling will be minimal and the Congress will vote some cosmetic change that will match what SCOTUS wants.

 

[antagon]

you are too dense, bern; mostly skull.

congress can apply 100% taxation and bar any imports to the country or movement of goods between states. its a hell of a general welfare argument, but the power to do all that is available to them. they've outlawed booze and gold, marijuana and child labor - all rights our founders felt we're owed in their, world 250 years ago. our recourse is to vote for congressmen who wont, or to be congressmen who don't encroach on our will. additionally, working outside the constitution, we could burn washington down and write a 'better' constitution.

that is the way it is meant to work. the founders also left government with the power to take on the people's will at the federal level. you feel strongly one way or the other, but your conjecture that the constitution should step in and protect your point of view, exclusively, is unfounded in fact.

the only fact which allows the US to support the rights of slave owners in one century, then support the rights of slaves the next is the vote.

That is not how the system is intended to work.

prove your case. dont just explain how emotional you are about how much power the legislature has.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, I have read your recent comments very closely. I admire your commitment. However, SCOTUS disagrees with your analysis, and, really, that is all that needs to be said in this thread.

 

[Vanquish]

You gotta give Bern points for effort though. And honestly, on a personal note, the recent surge of the tea party types has shown if someone, like Bern, holds a position and digs in their heels....and gets with other people avoiding logic and digging in their heels...that they can become a force to be reckoned with. Such is the American way.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, I appreciate your passion if not your common sense for the topic. The SCOTUS will most likely find the bill just peachy, but if they don't, the ruling will be minimal and the Congress will vote some cosmetic change that will match what SCOTUS wants.

Why? What constitutional authority would they site that allows the federal government to make people purchase things? The commerce clause? Two problems with that one. Since the anti-trust exemption wasn't lifted, the consumer can't engage in interstate commerce, they still must purchase health insurance within their state and the federal government can't regulate that. Secondly, IF you could purchase it accross state lines making people purchase it isn't REGULATING commerce, it's creating it.

 

[Bern80]

You gotta give Bern points for effort though. And honestly, on a personal note, the recent surge of the tea party types has shown if someone, like Bern, holds a position and digs in their heels....and gets with other people avoiding logic and digging in their heels...that they can become a force to be reckoned with. Such is the American way.

There is nothing illogical about my position. My point has essentially been proven because no one has been able to answer the original questions.

The framers did not intend for the central government to be able to run your life. They intended for central government to mostly stay out of it. If this new precedent stands you are simply going to have a hard time coming up with any legal footing stand on when the time comes that they make you do something you don't like so much. This is why I have asked that people look beyond the subject matter and apply the 'logic' you are using to other laws that might be passed.

 

[Bern80]

you are too dense, bern; mostly skull.

congress can apply 100% taxation and bar any imports to the country or movement of goods between states. its a hell of a general welfare argument, but the power to do all that is available to them. they've outlawed booze and gold, marijuana and child labor - all rights our founders felt we're owed in their, world 250 years ago. our recourse is to vote for congressmen who wont, or to be congressmen who don't encroach on our will. additionally, working outside the constitution, we could burn washington down and write a 'better' constitution.

that is the way it is meant to work. the founders also left government with the power to take on the people's will at the federal level. you feel strongly one way or the other, but your conjecture that the constitution should step in and protect your point of view, exclusively, is unfounded in fact.

the only fact which allows the US to support the rights of slave owners in one century, then support the rights of slaves the next is the vote.

That is not how the system is intended to work.

prove your case. dont just explain how emotional you are about how much power the legislature has.

Again I have all the constitutional authority I need as there is nothing in it granting central government the authority to require people to make private purchases. If they can do that there isn't much they can't make you do and tax you for every last dime you have if you don't. If that is your position you are not a free person. You are slave to the whims of government and that is exactly the opposite of how government was intended to operate in this country. How do I know? Because the fucking constitution starts with, WE THE PEOPLE............ Not we the government form a more perfect union to figure out what's best for you and mandate what's best for you.

What you chose to qote, or didn't, shows that you are the one out of logical arguments. The fact that you can't answer a single question I've asked shows that. I asked you to forget about the tax and tell me whether government has the constitutional authority to require you to purchase things. You couldn't answer or more likely didn't want to because deep down, even you get the ramifactions of that. It means this is not a free country at all despite the constitution saying that's exactley what it is suppossed to be.

 

[antagon]

there's a difference between requiring you to do something and taxing you if you dont have something. you want to bridge that difference and wield it as an argument. fail.

you're more free than me

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

 

[Bern80]

there's a difference between requiring you to do something and taxing you if you dont have something. you want to bridge that difference and wield it as an argument. fail.

you're more free than me

EXACTLY MY POINT. It is your contention that government can make you do whatever it wants BECAUSE it has the authority to tax and can use that authority as a penalty for non-complaince of a mandate. Which means what you are implicitly saying is that the mandate may not be constitutional if a different penalty were imposed for non-compliance. Which means laws, in of themselves, don't really have to be constitutional one way or the other by your rationale as long as the penalty for non-compliance is a power granted to the government. I think you agreed before that is wholly non-sensical, but you have to understand is that is reality of your position.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

it is noted that you couldn't actually answer the question.

 

[Vanquish]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

it is noted that you couldn't actually answer the question.

it is noted that you couldn't listen to the logic stated earlier.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

it is noted that you couldn't actually answer the question.

it is noted that you couldn't listen to the logic stated earlier.

This is again at best the pot caling the kettle black and reeks of hypocrisy. You can tell me you've put all your biases and presumptions about me aside and really objectively weighed the argument? How you have engaged in the conversation suggests you have not.

There was no logic given. What has been stated time and time again is that the reason government can make you purchase something is because government has the authority to tax and that power extends to the ability to use it as a penalty for non-compliance of a law. There is zero logic in that rationale because it would render the constitutionality of law itself irrelevant. It's why I keep presenting these analgoes that you all say are bullshit. They're not. They are simply your rationale applied to a different set of variables. The rationale is essentially that the constittuionality of a law is conditional upon the penalty for its violation.

 

[antagon]

beyond my position, bern, thats the reality of the situation. it can get out of hand, and there's evidence that a door of realization has been opened with this bill. nevertheless, that is the way our government is set up.

as to thumbs up, thumbs down, I think that the government will have to double its intake in taxes over the next decade, and reduce its wagner-creep on the GDP back to within reason. considerable cuts need to be made to the outlay as well. i would prefer these taxes and cuts come at the expense of people other than myself. i dont smoke cigarettes, i've got over $150k to go before i break out of my tax bracket, and i already have a health plan, so, so far so good.

that this approach to taxation picks and chooses demographics based on the impact the government perceives they have on society is preferred to across the board 'fairness' to me. if you've got to spend a bunch of money on healthcare, fine, charge the people who are liabilities to the system...

easy to say now i've got coverage.

 

[Vanquish]

See, that's a good, balanced post. Not only a well-reasoned, but he steps back and looks at the practical perspective.

 

[Bern80]

beyond my position, bern, thats the reality of the situation. it can get out of hand, and there's evidence that a door of realization has been opened with this bill. nevertheless, that is the way our government is set up.

That the constitutionality of a law is conditional on the penalty you can institute for violating it? Other laws prove that isn't realty. Murder isn't illegal only IF you throw someone in jail for it. Forget about the penalty for violation of the mandate a second and that government has the power to tax. Doesn't government also need to have the constitutional authority to make you buy something?

as to thumbs up, thumbs down, I think that the government will have to double its intake in taxes over the next decade, and reduce its wagner-creep on the GDP back to within reason. considerable cuts need to be made to the outlay as well. i would prefer these taxes and cuts come at the expense of people other than myself. i dont smoke cigarettes, i've got over $150k to go before i break out of my tax bracket, and i already have a health plan, so, so far so good.

that this approach to taxation picks and chooses demographics based on the impact the government perceives they have on society is preferred to across the board 'fairness' to me. if you've got to spend a bunch of money on healthcare, fine, charge the people who are liabilities to the system...

easy to say now i've got coverage.

Well that brings me to my other problem with this. If one argument is government can make this mandate because it has the power to tax, why do you need the mandate at all? If they can tax, they can tax. They don't need to hope a bunch of people don't comply in order to collect their 2.5%. Just raise everyone income tax 2.5% and leave me free to choose whether I want to purchase health insurance or not.

 

[antagon]

1) bern, if you take away the penalty, there is no mandate. with a murder, however, if you take away the penalty, the crime remains, because there's a criminal code in every state specific to it. the small differences which you hope to blur away, are the ones that give the law standing from my perspective. its like me saying, "lets say murder wasnt actually killing someone, if you.."

2)i dont want to pay another 2.5% tax, bern. ive got my ass kicked as it is. i like pigouvian taxation, and think it is more effective than regulating and propaganda when it comes to most situations. it creates a market value for taxes, rather than a straight kick in the nuts. take deductions for example.

lots of people are in favor of simplifying tax, but that throws away what potential taxation can have as a directing force in the wider economy. directing a capitalist economy is a crucial part of its stewardship. without direction, as laissez-faire capitalists fail to understand, it will totally undo itself.

 

[antagon]

Just raise everyone income tax 2.5% and leave me free to choose whether I want to purchase health insurance or not.

yes. and the other half is just political maneuvering for votes. the first people to get lit up in the escalation of taxes will be top-bracketers, and people not using their money on things the government already knows are mainstream. these small minorities, to include people who are voluntarily holding out on getting a health plan, the government is hoping, will not impact their popularity in the next 2 elections. tenuous.