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

[antagon]

What opinion of the SCOTUS has EVER backed up the notion that government can REQUIRE every single person to make private purchases?

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

All 4 Conservative Judges dissented:


MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER joins in this opinion.

[183] MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting.

[184] I think that the objections to the challenged enactment expressed in the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND are well taken. I am also of opinion that, in principle and as applied to bring about and to gain control over state unemployment compensation, the statutory scheme is repugnant to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution grants to the United States no power to pay unemployed persons or to require the States to enact laws or to raise or disburse money for that purpose. The provisions in question, if not amounting to coercion in a legal sense, are manifestly designed and intended directly to affect state action in the respects specified. . And, if valid as so employed, this 'tax and credit' device may be made effective to enable federal authorities to induce, if not indeed to compel, state enactments for any purpose within the realm of [301 U.S. 548, 617] state power and generally to control state administration of state laws. "

.

Can you clarify where you're going with this example? From what I can tell the dissenting opinion is in regards to what the tax is being used for. I don't see how it indicates one way or the other whether government can make people purchase things. I think it might lend an argument that such a mandate could be allowed on a state level as long as the state's constitution does not prohibit it.

looking at that decision, the state's opinion on the matter was a part of the decision. they denied the original petition and the some subsequent appeals which the decision noted with regard to the plaintiff's claim that the feds were coercing the state against its will.

you should read through that decision, which upholds a tax-mandate (social security) earmarked with a condition. then through bailey v drexel furniture, which overturns an attempt to tax (child labor tax) as a penalty.

you might be able to make a real argument, instead of an emotional one.

 

[Bern80]

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

All 4 Conservative Judges dissented:


MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER joins in this opinion.

[183] MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting.

[184] I think that the objections to the challenged enactment expressed in the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND are well taken. I am also of opinion that, in principle and as applied to bring about and to gain control over state unemployment compensation, the statutory scheme is repugnant to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution grants to the United States no power to pay unemployed persons or to require the States to enact laws or to raise or disburse money for that purpose. The provisions in question, if not amounting to coercion in a legal sense, are manifestly designed and intended directly to affect state action in the respects specified. . And, if valid as so employed, this 'tax and credit' device may be made effective to enable federal authorities to induce, if not indeed to compel, state enactments for any purpose within the realm of [301 U.S. 548, 617] state power and generally to control state administration of state laws. "

.

Can you clarify where you're going with this example? From what I can tell the dissenting opinion is in regards to what the tax is being used for. I don't see how it indicates one way or the other whether government can make people purchase things. I think it might lend an argument that such a mandate could be allowed on a state level as long as the state's constitution does not prohibit it.

looking at that decision, the state's opinion on the matter was a part of the decision. they denied the original petition and the some subsequent appeals which the decision noted with regard to the plaintiff's claim that the feds were coercing the state against its will.

you should read through that decision, which upholds a tax-mandate (social security) earmarked with a condition. then through bailey v drexel furniture, which overturns an attempt to tax (child labor tax) as a penalty.

you might be able to make a real argument, instead of an emotional one.

You're right. It is semantics. But at the very least you would have to admit that your phrasing of the mandate objectively speaking isnt any more valid than mine. Yes you can say they are imposing a 2.5% income tax increase on every American who doesn't purchae health insurance. It is also equally true to say that government is requiring everyone to purchase health care or pay 2.5% tax on their income.

Problem is, no mater how you word it, it doesn't change the fact that it opens the door for government to have considerably more control over your lives. I don't believe the framers ever intended for the gobvernment to be able to use the tax code to illicit desired behaviors out of the populace. That's slavery. Pure and simple.

 

[csbarry]

I still have yet to receive a reasonable answer to this in light of the passage of the health care bill.

One person (spiderman) tried to weasel it into be constitutional under the 16th ammendment 'rationalizing' that since government is granted the power to tax income they can make requirements of the peope as long as they levy an income tax penalty for non-compliance. That of course is rather ludicrous.

Here's the reasonable answer you have been looking for; funding to increase the return on investments does not give the government, at any level, the right to dictate how I spend my money.

 

[antagon]

Can you clarify where you're going with this example? From what I can tell the dissenting opinion is in regards to what the tax is being used for. I don't see how it indicates one way or the other whether government can make people purchase things. I think it might lend an argument that such a mandate could be allowed on a state level as long as the state's constitution does not prohibit it.

looking at that decision, the state's opinion on the matter was a part of the decision. they denied the original petition and the some subsequent appeals which the decision noted with regard to the plaintiff's claim that the feds were coercing the state against its will.

you should read through that decision, which upholds a tax-mandate (social security) earmarked with a condition. then through bailey v drexel furniture, which overturns an attempt to tax (child labor tax) as a penalty.

you might be able to make a real argument, instead of an emotional one.

You're right. It is semantics. But at the very least you would have to admit that your phrasing of the mandate objectively speaking isnt any more valid than mine. Yes you can say they are imposing a 2.5% income tax increase on every American who doesn't purchae health insurance. It is also equally true to say that government is requiring everyone to purchase health care or pay 2.5% tax on their income.

Problem is, no mater how you word it, it doesn't change the fact that it opens the door for government to have considerably more control over your lives. I don't believe the framers ever intended for the gobvernment to be able to use the tax code to illicit desired behaviors out of the populace. That's slavery. Pure and simple.

what do you call tariffs, bern? buy american: the basis of our tax policy up to the civil war.

stop with this 'the founders/the framers' shit. these men bickered over the role of the fed and the states just as much as now. some, like washington and hamilton, were nationalists. their constitution would be even more federally weighted than the one we have.

none, have had the benefit of the last 200 years' history and political/economic science development.

read some of the progressive era decisions. holla back.

 

[Bern80]

looking at that decision, the state's opinion on the matter was a part of the decision. they denied the original petition and the some subsequent appeals which the decision noted with regard to the plaintiff's claim that the feds were coercing the state against its will.

you should read through that decision, which upholds a tax-mandate (social security) earmarked with a condition. then through bailey v drexel furniture, which overturns an attempt to tax (child labor tax) as a penalty.

you might be able to make a real argument, instead of an emotional one.

You're right. It is semantics. But at the very least you would have to admit that your phrasing of the mandate objectively speaking isnt any more valid than mine. Yes you can say they are imposing a 2.5% income tax increase on every American who doesn't purchae health insurance. It is also equally true to say that government is requiring everyone to purchase health care or pay 2.5% tax on their income.

Problem is, no mater how you word it, it doesn't change the fact that it opens the door for government to have considerably more control over your lives. I don't believe the framers ever intended for the gobvernment to be able to use the tax code to illicit desired behaviors out of the populace. That's slavery. Pure and simple.

what do you call tariffs, bern? buy american: the basis of our tax policy up to the civil war.

stop with this 'the founders/the framers' shit. these men bickered over the role of the fed and the states just as much as now. some, like washington and hamilton, were nationalists. their constitution would be even more federally weighted than the one we have.

none, have had the benefit of the last 200 years' history and political/economic science development.

read some of the progressive era decisions. holla back.

Who said I agree with tariffs?

And how about you go read a few of the federalist papers. Hamilton was a lot more conservative than liberals want to give him credit for. Yes he a had a broader view of the general welfare clause but he still maintained they must indeed be for the general welfare, as in for the benefit of everyone, thus he would most likely be opposed to programs like SS and medicare. You want us to believe Hamilton 200 years ago was more liberal than say JFK? No they haven't had the 'benefit' of the last 200 years. That's why they wrote the document such that we can change it if enough of us feel like it, but you don't get to ignore it or play mental gymnastics in order to get what you want out of it.

But again you are losing the forest for the trees. Why do you defend this level of government control so hard? Am I just weird in that I want government to leave me the hell alone?

 

[Contumacious]

What opinion of the SCOTUS has EVER backed up the notion that government can REQUIRE every single person to make private purchases?

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

All 4 Conservative Judges dissented:


MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER joins in this opinion.

[183] MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting.

[184] I think that the objections to the challenged enactment expressed in the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND are well taken. I am also of opinion that, in principle and as applied to bring about and to gain control over state unemployment compensation, the statutory scheme is repugnant to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution grants to the United States no power to pay unemployed persons or to require the States to enact laws or to raise or disburse money for that purpose. The provisions in question, if not amounting to coercion in a legal sense, are manifestly designed and intended directly to affect state action in the respects specified. . And, if valid as so employed, this 'tax and credit' device may be made effective to enable federal authorities to induce, if not indeed to compel, state enactments for any purpose within the realm of [301 U.S. 548, 617] state power and generally to control state administration of state laws. "

.

Can you clarify where you're going with this example? From what I can tell the dissenting opinion is in regards to what the tax is being used for. I don't see how it indicates one way or the other whether government can make people purchase things. I think it might lend an argument that such a mandate could be allowed on a state level as long as the state's constitution does not prohibit it.

(1) Ninth and Tenth Amendments: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(2) What they are about to do is make CRIMINALS out of poor people who can’t afford insurance and for whatever reason cannot “prove” that adequately to the government. Which means they’ll have to have some bureaucrat looking at their bank account information and poring over their expenses to see if they’re spending money on something the government doesn’t approve of, whatever they don’t think you deserve to have if you can’t afford insurance.

So instead, these people will just have to avoid going to the doctor altogether. It will no longer be legal to go to the doctor and pay with cash .

MARK MY WORDS: people will soon be getting
arrested at the hospital for seeking medical treatment without insurance. And millions more will simply not go to the hospital for fear of getting arrested, and will just suffer and die in misery, not even allowed to use money they’ve saved to buy medical treatment."

.

 

[antagon]

tariffs, bern, were the method of taxation that the founders were down with. it is a means to direct consumption by artificially adjusting the value of foreign goods. you understand that, though. i mentioned it because you thought that the founders were above coercion via taxation, when in fact madison was addicted to tariffs.

i think that the h/c bill will pass a general welfare argument. what about the federalist papers?

why i defend it? i think it is defensible on constitutional grounds. like i said earlier, we need to raise taxes, and i'm all for selective taxation as a method. particularly if it doesnt select me.

 

[Bern80]

i think that the h/c bill will pass a general welfare argument. what about the federalist papers?

The general purpose they serve is so that just in case people might try to make a half ass argument about the intent of the constitution, they could be reference to determine it's true itent.

why i defend it? i think it is defensible on constitutional grounds. like i said earlier, we need to raise taxes, and i'm all for selective taxation as a method. particularly if it doesnt select me.

Well it least you have the little integrity to admit you're an unprincipled, entitlement 'progressive'. Raise taxes, just not mine, so I can have what I think I'm entitled to?' Character and integrity are apparently traits one can ill afford nowadays. It's so backwards thinking it's mind boggling. What possible good comes from taxing people into oblivion? Are you just that afraid to require some modicum of accountability from people? You exemplify perfectly how backwards our society has become. Government's goal should be trying to figure out how to allow people to KEEP as much of their money as possible, not invent new ways to take it.

 

[antagon]

dont you think that a targetted tax results in the people not targetted by it 'keeping more of their money', bern? i think that your conclusion about me tramples its own logic with that one. where an initiative is made to provide more coverage for people, most people who are already covered dont have to bear the cost.

most small employers already offering healthcare are better positioned as well.

of course, your moral highness would prefer to pay the 2.5% extra ...in which case in your esteemed integrity can drop what coverage you've got, if any, and pay the extra tax.

accountability is the purpose for directed taxation and deductions, bern. without them, we are all communized to be accountable for everyone else.

as for entitlement, those days are long gone for me. i haven't seen a tax return since '99. are you done pretending to be jesus with the character jabs?

 

[Bern80]

dont you think that a targetted tax results in the people not targetted by it 'keeping more of their money', bern? i think that your conclusion about me tramples its own logic with that one. where an initiative is made to provide more coverage for people, most people who are already covered dont have to bear the cost.

Only for some. Which is exactly my point. Some morality it is of liberals to say raise taxes for the greater good...... just not mine. Or we need to erect gobs of wind turbines.......just not in my backyard. That isn't morality. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

of course, your moral highness would prefer to pay the 2.5% extra ...in which case in your esteemed integrity can drop what coverage you've got, if any, and pay the extra tax.

All that assumes is that A) this tax increase is actually somehow moral, which I can't figure out since we haven't been told what this penalty tax is actually going to be used for and B) raising taxes is the only moral way to fix the problem. That is seemingly the only way liberals know how to solve problems; throw money at it.

accountability is the purpose for directed taxation and deductions, bern. without them, we are all communized to be accountable for everyone else.

How is taxing someone for not purchasing health insurance by choice holding them morally accountable?

as for entitlement, those days are long gone for me. i haven't seen a tax return since '99. are you done pretending to be jesus with the character jabs?

Just repeating what's written ant and I've never found people who say we need to raise taxes as long as it isn't their own, one's for much character.

 

[antagon]

i wont go as far as morally accountable i dont think that's a necessary function of taxes, but if there's a premise that someone is accountable for the betterment of society, in an economic sense, i feel the tax code could pay respect to that.

although it escapes me this year to my dismay, most years im able to deduct around half of my tax liability. while some people might criticize that, or you might scurry to moral high ground over the fact, the deductions represent dividends to the economy. were they not there, this direction of profits toward reinvestment wont occur to the extent that it does now. it is one of the primary reasons americans are more charitable and more entrepreneurial than anywhere else in the world: our tax system. -- specifically the coercive parts of it bern, that you called slavery earlier.

in this way, unless you're a welfare mom, avoiding tax liability is a distinction of laudable character. the people who write checks, in addition to just receiving them, save thousands in tax dollars this time of year on the basis of your 'character' deficit.

im getting the impression that you're some kind of 'fair'/flat tax-head.

 

[antagon]

Only for some. Which is exactly my point. Some morality it is of liberals to say raise taxes for the greater good...... just not mine. Or we need to erect gobs of wind turbines.......just not in my backyard. That isn't morality. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

only for most, bern. not many folks were uncovered anyhow. some who werent will be covered by employers . some by the medicare expansion. some will get coverage on their own. some wont, opting to pay the tax, which will always be less than typical health plans, and is tied (as a %) to the person's income.

you could count on obama targeting small minorities with his taxation, early on. tax burden and votes dont blend too well.

 

[Contumacious]

tariffs, bern, were the method of taxation that the founders were down with. it is a means to direct consumption by artificially adjusting the value of foreign goods. you understand that, though. i mentioned it because you thought that the founders were above coercion via taxation, when in fact madison was addicted to tariffs.

i think that the h/c bill will pass a general welfare argument. what about the federalist papers?

why i defend it? i think it is defensible on constitutional grounds. like i said earlier, we need to raise taxes, and i'm all for selective taxation as a method. particularly if it doesnt select me.

Absolutely correct.

The H/C Bill will pass a general welfare argument as presented by our Founding Father Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

Thank you for noticing that, comrade.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of this from a libertarian who wants to change the age of consent laws so he can get at children. Not for a moment do you care about any of the other stuff other than to use it as a trojan horse for your nasty desires.