Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

You can phrase it however you want, the Congress has broad authority to tax income. The 16th amendment does not place any restrictions on that power.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

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.

I have no idea WTF you're talking about. You've been babbling for pages now. The authority to tax income is clear. Stop arguing in circles.

 

[Bern80]

I have no idea WTF you're talking about. You've been babbling for pages now. The authority to tax income is clear. Stop arguing in circles.

I'm not. You are the one who apparently doesn't recognize the falacy of their position because the above is the reality of it.

You are arguing that laws in of themselves do not have to meet any standard of constitutionality as long as the penalty for violating them is the collection of a tax. Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax. If you can't see how conveneint such a position would be for a power hungry government there is no helping you. You can pretend Hamilton agrees with you all you like, he and none of the other framers would even entertain such a ridiculous position.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sorry Bern80, I can't read what you said. What did you say?

 

[Bern80]

Sorry Bern80, I can't read what you said. What did you say?

Probably because you have decided to remain willfuly ignorant and purposfully obtuse. Problems only you can fix. I'll take the above as waving the white flag. It's quite sad to see someone who would rather focus on being on immature then recognize the danger their postion holds to their own freedom. On the other hand I'm sure the Dems in congress just love people like you to death. People who are not only too stupid to realize their freedoms are being removed but will actually argue FOR their removal.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Huh? What's with the blank messages?

 

[Bern80]

Huh? What's with the blank messages?

At the end of the day the only person that has to answer to you is you. If you've descended to the point where you just need the last word, go for it. I'm pretty sure the record of this thread speaks for itself. You're inability to objectively and intelligently discuss the obvious problems with your position are already fully on display here.

If you are fine with maintaining the assertion the constitution allows for and the framers intended for centralized government to be able to mandate what people MUST privately purchase, as long as they collect a tax if don't, I'm really fine with letting you dig that hole.

You have a horribly warped interpretation of the 16th ammendment. Yes they are granted the power to tax income. That does not mean they have the power to control your behavior in order to collect. Hell they don't need to. If they can tax income, they can tax income. They don't need to a create a mandate, which is separate from the act of creating a tax for violating it btw, in hopes that people will violate it in order to collect it.

 

[FA_Q2]

bern
Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax.

And of cource here is the question that no one can answer. That is why spider will not answer. I am awaiting the tax if you are not regestered a democrat.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Bern08 do you have something you wanna say?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

bern
Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax.

And of cource here is the question that no one can answer. That is why spider will not answer.

Its not a question, there's nothing to answer. If you want to know what the Constitution says, though, I'd recommend reading it and reading what the Supreme Court has said about it, rather than hanging out with Bern08 and pondering what it should mean in a hypothetical right wing reality.

 

[Bern80]

bern
Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax.

And of cource here is the question that no one can answer. That is why spider will not answer.

Its not a question, there's nothing to answer. If you want to know what the Constitution says, though, I'd recommend reading it and reading what the Supreme Court has said about it, rather than hanging out with Bern08 and pondering what it should mean in a hypothetical right wing reality.

I have read it several times. Which is probably why I understand that while congress has the ability to tax income, they do not have the ability to require people to make any type of private purchase in order to tax income. Such an interpretation would allow congress to mandate whatever it wanted which is level of power the constitution doesn't allow for the fed. We all know for a fact that the framers intended for the federal government to have limited powers. Yet your interpretation would give them nearly UNlimited power. You have no supreme court case on your side where this issue is concerned because such a requirement of the citizenry is frankly unprecedented. The federal government has never required every single citizen to privately purchase anything....EVER.

If you still support the position that that the fed can require you to do whatever they feel like requiring you to do, as long as they can collect a tax if you don't, YOU show me the court cases that would support that. The 16th ammendment doesn't work as an argument for that simply because if they have the right to tax income then they most certainly don't need a mandate for people to violate in order to justify doing so. Which means the constitutionality of what government can mandate people do and the constitutionality of what they can tax for are two entirely different things.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

???? What?

 

[Bern80]

???? What?

Translation: I have no rationale argument so I'm going to resort to acting like a 12 year old.

The government can mandate people to do or buy pretty much anything as long as they can collect a tax if you don't. That is the reality of your position. You have never denied this position. Unfortunately you also have not evidence for it.

The constitution doesn't support it.

The framers would not have supported it.

And no supreme court case has ever addressed the subject of what government can require people to privately purchase.

The more juvenile responses you make the more you lose the debate and look like immature idiot. From a debate stand point when you can reduce your opponent to the level you've stooped it means he is out of rationale counter arguments and has lost the debate.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do you keep replying?

 

[Bern80]

Why do you keep replying?

Why are you acting like a 12 year old? You're welcome to address the problems with your position in an intelligent manner any time you like. So far you have not done so. Probably because you're inflated ego will not allow you to admit to the obvious problems with your position. In the meantime, I keep replying because I know you'll keep replying with ever more juvenile responses and at this point it's just fun watching you make a complete ass of yourself in front of a lot of people.

 

[Claudette]

Looking at all I've ever read about the men who framed the Constitution and trying to gauge their thinking I can only conclude that all these Govt entitlements granted through that GW clause would never had been granted in their day. Never in a million years.

In fact if I had to take a guess my guess would be that those very same founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they could see the power our Govt has today as opposed to what they envisioned Govt to be with their document. Oh yes. I think they would all be sadly dissappointed.

Of course thats just my opinion but one I think is true.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Looking at all I've ever read about the men who framed the Constitution and trying to gauge their thinking I can only conclude that all these Govt entitlements granted through that GW clause would never had been granted in their day. Never in a million years.

The men who framed the Constitution also would have never granted you the right to vote, Claudette, not in a million years. So since the Founders didn't care what you had to say, why should we?