Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[Bern80]

Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power.

The authority to tax for health care is Constitutional. The authority to tax for the general welfare is provided for in Article I Section 8 clause 1, and the authority to levy that tax on income is in the 16th amendment.

I can't believe that the founders, who seemed to be pretty wise men, would approve of Meidcare, SS, Welfare and Medicaid.

It doesn't really matter, they don't get a vote, they're dead.

Yes. Your right. They are dead and being dead they can't cast a vote. I just wonder how they would view how the GW clause has been used in our Govt?? It does seem to be open to interpritation. Depending on who's looking at it of course.

I just wonder what they would think of our Govt today??

Somehow I don't think they would be pleased at all.

Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view. Madison believed that the clause applies specifically to the enumreated powers immediately following it. Makes sense, otherwise why make a general statement followed by very specific statements? Hamilton's view was broader but he did believe general welfare meant just that. It allowed government to tax for more than what was enumerated, but the purpose of the tax still had to be literally for the general welfare that is for the benefit of all. SS doesn't fall into that criteria, nor does medicare and nor would mandating that people purchase health insurance.

 

[Claudette]

Thanks Bern.

I definetely need to read the Federalist Papers. I have a copy of the Constitution and have read that a few times.

The founders were very wise men who wanted to liimit Govt. Very wise indeed.

 

[Contumacious]

Hamilton's view was broader but he did believe general welfare meant just that. It allowed government to tax for more than what was enumerated, but the purpose of the tax still had to be literally for the general welfare that is for the benefit of all. .

Really?

Which federalist?

.

 

[Bern80]

Hamilton's view was broader but he did believe general welfare meant just that. It allowed government to tax for more than what was enumerated, but the purpose of the tax still had to be literally for the general welfare that is for the benefit of all. .

Really?

Which federalist?

.

This is from way back on page 6 of this thread: The following is a quote from Hamilton, though I don't believe it is from the Federalist papers

T

hat the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Next the interpretation of what was said by Michael Meyersom, author of Liberty's Blueprint

In other words, Hamilton says, don't object to the funding part of it by improperly inferring that I think the federal government can legislate on anything it might deem to be in the general welfare. Or--more simply--just because you can fund it doesn't mean you can legislate it. Maybe Madison and Hamilton were more in agreement about the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution than has been generally thought.

Regardless of whether the Founders disagreed on the "general ability" of the federal government to legislate as regards the General Welfare, it seems easy to intuit that the Founders, were they alive today, would be unanimous in bemoaning that a great deal of what the federal government funds today is of a very un-general nature, and is therefore unconstitutional.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power.

The authority to tax for health care is Constitutional. The authority to tax for the general welfare is provided for in Article I Section 8 clause 1, and the authority to levy that tax on income is in the 16th amendment.

I can't believe that the founders, who seemed to be pretty wise men, would approve of Meidcare, SS, Welfare and Medicaid.

It doesn't really matter, they don't get a vote, they're dead.

Yes. Your right. They are dead and being dead they can't cast a vote. I just wonder how they would view how the GW clause has been used in our Govt?? It does seem to be open to interpritation. Depending on who's looking at it of course.

I just wonder what they would think of our Govt today??

Somehow I don't think they would be pleased at all.

THe court's have adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the gw clause.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

mandating that people purchase health care IS NOT A TAX.

If you're referring to the changes to the IRS code in the health care bill that would impose a tax on people who did not have health care - then you're wrong, it is a tax.

A tax is a tax. How fucking hard is that to understand?

which is different from taxing people for not purchasing it.

That's EXACTLY what they are doing you fuck - taxing people for not buying healthcare, have you read the relevant part of the bill? NO. Of course not. Bern08 isn't concerned with factual reality.

They are not taxing FOR the purpose of funding the mandate, which is what the general welfare clause says they can tax for.

The tax revenue doesn't have to be for anything in particular as long as it is spent on something Constitutional. They could take it and buy health care under the GW clause, or they could take it and buy a stealth bomber, or toilets for the U.S.S. Nimitz, or spend it on highways.

They are taxing you if you don't comply with the mandate. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

mandating that people purchase health care IS NOT A TAX.

Jeezus make up your fucking mind!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view.

And the court has adopted Hamilton's view. End of story.

 

[Bern80]

Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view.

And the court has adopted Hamilton's view. End of story.

The problem is you think Hamilton would agree with you.

 

[Bern80]

If you're referring to the changes to the IRS code in the health care bill that would impose a tax on people who did not have health care - then you're wrong, it is a tax.

A tax is a tax. How fucking hard is that to understand?

How fucking hard is it to understand that the only way the tax can be collected is if people don't do something the government decided it gets to make everyone do?

That's EXACTLY what they are doing you fuck - taxing people for not buying healthcare, have you read the relevant part of the bill? NO. Of course not. Bern08 isn't concerned with factual reality.

Does it say something different then what I have said here?

The tax revenue doesn't have to be for anything in particular as long as it is spent on something Constitutional. They could take it and buy health care under the GW clause, or they could take it and buy a stealth bomber, or toilets for the U.S.S. Nimitz, or spend it on highways.

Yes it does. It has to be for the general welfare. Meaning it has to be for the betterment of everyone. If collecting the tax is constitutional anyway doesn't it sort of beg the question why they need someone to violate a mandate to collect it?


You just plain don't get it spidey. It isn't about the tax for violating the mandate. It's about the mandate in the first place. The only way government can collect this tax is if people violate it. Essentially what you are arguing is that the mandate is constitutional because the tax that will be collected in violation of the mandate MAY be used constitutionally. But if government can collect taxes for the general welfare anyway it certainly doesn't need a mandate in hopes that people will violate to collect this tax. They could just say we're increasing income tax rates by 2.5%. Which means the mandate really is separate from the tax. The question is not whether the penalty for violating the mandate constitutional,. The question is whether the mandate itself is constitutional.

Answer this question. What if the penalty was different. What if instead of tax (and let's get real, it's really a fine) it was illegal and they could throw you in jail for not purchasing health insurance. Would mandating that people buy it still be constitutional?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view.

And the court has adopted Hamilton's view. End of story.

The problem is you think Hamilton would agree with you.

So does the Supreme Court in U.S. v Butler. But I forget that in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland the Supreme Court is irrelevant.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

How fucking hard is it to understand that the only way the tax can be collected is if people don't do something the government decided it gets to make everyone do?

So what? Its still a tax.

Meaning it has to be for the betterment of everyone.

And we the people are about to decide through our duly elected Congress that if everyone had health care we'd all be better off.

If collecting the tax is constitutional anyway doesn't it sort of beg the question why they need someone to violate a mandate to collect it?

Uhh, because that's what the bill says?

Answer this question. What if the penalty was different. What if instead of tax (and let's get real, it's really a fine) it was illegal and they could throw you in jail for not purchasing health insurance.

Obviously, that would be unconstitutional shit for brains. That's why they are using a tax, its the only constitutional way to do it.

 

[Bern80]

And we the people are about to decide through our duly elected Congress that if everyone had health care we'd all be better off.

So would a lot of things make us better off. But either you believe in freedom or you don't. We know which is the case for you.

Obviously, that would be unconstitutional shit for brains. That's why they are using a tax, its the only constitutional way to do it.

So the constitutionality of a mandate is determined by the penalty for violating it? You want to talk about make believe worlds. Here's what you just said: 'Government can make me do whatever it wants to as long as the penalty for me not doing it is just a tax.' In other words what government mandates is really irrelevant the only thing that matters is that the penalty for violating the mandate is constitutional.

You continue to miss the point or you're just too chicken shit to address it. The question is not whether the PENALTY for violating the mandate is constitutional. It's whether the mandate ITSELF is constititonal. The penalty is irrelevant. WHERE DOES CONGRESS DERIVE THE POWER TO MAKE CITIZENS BUY SOMETHING? PERIOD. No if it's this penalty or if it's that penalty.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

WHERE DOES CONGRESS DERIVE THE POWER TO MAKE CITIZENS BUY SOMETHING?

The power to tax is in the main body of the Constitution and the 16th amendment.

You really are stupid, aren't you?

 

[Bern80]

WHERE DOES CONGRESS DERIVE THE POWER TO MAKE CITIZENS BUY SOMETHING?

The power to tax is in the main body of the Constitution and the 16th amendment.

You really are stupid, aren't you?

The authority to tax the people is COMPLETELY different then what you can make them do moron.

How are YOU so stupid as to not get that what government can make you do is different then what they can tax you for? The tax is dependant on the mandate, no the other way around. Again what you have just stated is that government can make you do anything it wants as long as they tax you for it. You're logic is so fucked up it's unreal. Yes government can collect taxes. That doesn't mean they can make up any mandate they feel like in hopes that someone will violate it in order to collect that tax.


Laws on anything must be constitutional on there own merit. Whether a law is constitutional or not is not dependent on the penalty for violating it. I'm pretty sure that's a concept even you get. Otherwsie again what you are arguing is that government can make you do whatever they want as long as the penalty for it is a tax. You really want to stick with that ridiculous contention?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The authority to tax the people is COMPLETELY different then what you can make them do moron.

This bill doesn't make anyone do anything, you're free to not purchase health-care on your own and pay the tax instead.

How are YOU so stupid as to not get that what government can make you do is different then what they can tax you for?

Its still a tax.

Again what you have just stated is that government can make you do anything it wants as long as they tax you for it.

They can't make you do anything they want. But they can tax your income.

That doesn't mean they can make up any mandate they feel like in hopes that someone will violate it in order to collect that tax.

It isn't just something they felt like doing.

Whether a law is constitutional or not is not dependent on the penalty for violating it

The penalty, in this case, is a tax, which is constitutional.

 

[Bern80]

This bill doesn't make anyone do anything, you're free to not purchase health-care on your own and pay the tax instead.

Semantics Spidey.

They can't make you do anything they want. But they can tax your income.

According to YOUR argument as long as they can collect a tax if you violate it, yes they can.

The penalty, in this case, is a tax, which is constitutional.

That is being a bit disingenuous. You argued that the mandate was constitutional under the general welfare clause. In which case the PURPOSE of the tax must be to improve the general welfare. That isn't the purpose of this tax. It's purpose is to serve as a penalty an no information is given as to what the tax will be used for. If the purpose of this tax is really to improve the general welfare there isn't any need for the mandate at all. Man up and just say your raising income taxes 2.5%

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The penalty, in this case, is a tax, which is constitutional.

That is being a bit disingenuous.

Not really. The 16th amendment gives Congress broad authority to tax income.

In which case the PURPOSE of the tax must be to improve the general welfare. That isn't the purpose of this tax.

You're not the arbiter of what is in the general welfare or not.

 

[Bern80]

Not really. The 16th amendment gives Congress broad authority to tax income.

It does NOT grant them power to make people do whatever they feel like in order to collect said tax. It is noted that you pussied out of addressing the reality of your position. Again according to YOUR argument government can mandate that people do whatever they want as long as the penalty for violating the mandate is just a tax. Own it chicken shit.

You're not the arbiter of what is in the general welfare or not.

I am saying that because no purpose is stated in the excerpt you posted. Any tax levied at the very least must fit the definition of general welfare. The benefits derived from it must benefit everyone.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Again according to YOUR argument government can mandate that people do whatever they want as long as the penalty for violating the mandate is just a tax.

You're absolutely correct, Congress has broad authority to tax income.

Any tax levied at the very least must fit the definition of general welfare. The benefits derived from it must benefit everyone.

You are still not the arbiter of what is in the general welfare or not.

 

[Bern80]

You're absolutely correct, Congress has broad authority to tax income.

Spidey you finally descended to the point in the debate where you are just saying things to be disagreeable. You can't possibly believe that government is granted the powed in the constitution to make any mandate it wants as long as the penalty for violating it is a tax.

Nevermind that such a position rests on the other false presumption that the constitionality of a law itself is only dependent on the penalty for violating it.