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

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, I understand you, and I assure you that the bill is constitutional. SCOTUS will find the issue of having to buy a private product, instead of a private one, an argument without standing. The vote will be 9-0, perhaps 7-2 at the least, in favor of the legislation.

I will remind you of that. And if i am wrong, I will let you know about that also.

 

[Bern80]

Sure, I understand you, and I assure you that the bill is constitutional. SCOTUS will find the issue of having to buy a private product, instead of a private one, an argument without standing. The vote will be 9-0, perhaps 7-2 at the least, in favor of the legislation.

I will remind you of that. And if i am wrong, I will let you know about that also.

On what grounds? Why would they do that knowing the nearly unlimited power it grants the fed and knowing that one of the central purposes of the constitution was to LIMIT the power of the fed? You do understand the purpose of the constitution is to GRANT the government powers, right? What the legislature can do is detailed in Article 1, Section 8, and tell people what they must privately purchase ain't there.

 

[Care4all]

Sure, I understand you, and I assure you that the bill is constitutional. SCOTUS will find the issue of having to buy a private product, instead of a private one, an argument without standing. The vote will be 9-0, perhaps 7-2 at the least, in favor of the legislation.

I will remind you of that. And if i am wrong, I will let you know about that also.

On what grounds? Why would they do that knowing the nearly unlimited power it grants the fed and knowing that one of the central purposes of the constitution was to LIMIT the power of the fed? You do understand the purpose of the constitution is to GRANT the government powers, right? What the legislature can do is detailed in Article 1, Section 8, and tell people what they must privately purchase ain't there.

Is something in the constitution that tells them they have the power to tell the people what they must purchase from the government? like they must purchase social security insurance or must purchase medicare insurance if they work....

Does Article 1 section 8 give them the power to do such?

If not, where did the gvt get the power to institute Social security insurance...and where ever that power came from, can this be what is used to justify the private insurance mandate?

 

[Bern80]

Sure, I understand you, and I assure you that the bill is constitutional. SCOTUS will find the issue of having to buy a private product, instead of a private one, an argument without standing. The vote will be 9-0, perhaps 7-2 at the least, in favor of the legislation.

I will remind you of that. And if i am wrong, I will let you know about that also.

On what grounds? Why would they do that knowing the nearly unlimited power it grants the fed and knowing that one of the central purposes of the constitution was to LIMIT the power of the fed? You do understand the purpose of the constitution is to GRANT the government powers, right? What the legislature can do is detailed in Article 1, Section 8, and tell people what they must privately purchase ain't there.

Is something in the constitution that tells them they have the power to tell the people what they must purchase from the government? like they must purchase social security insurance or must purchase medicare insurance if they work....

Does Article 1 section 8 give them the power to do such?

If not, where did the gvt get the power to institute Social security insurance...and where ever that power came from, can this be what is used to justify the private insurance mandate?

First of all this mandate is requirement to purchase insurance privately, not from the government. This isn't a A making B buy something from A. This is A making B buy something from C. And we can figure this out real easily. Article 1, Section 8 is what the federal legislature can do, anything not there the fed can not do and is left to the discretion of the states. Madison and Jefferson say that 'to tax for the general welfare' is specific to the enumerated powers that follows that clause. Hamilton viewed more broadley stating that government can tax for things outside of that list, but they must still be for the general welfare. But I can't find anywhere in that section that grants the federal government the ability to mandate what people must do. Now spidey, in his infinite wisdom, would say they have the power to do that because they can tax. I have layed out the problems several times with his 'logic'. I sincerely hope you can see them too.

I know people have heard it a million times, but people need to objectively ask themselves whether SS and medicare are actually constitutional. That FDR had to threaten the Supreme Court in order to get it through should tell people something. Simply stated yes the fed can tax income, but whatever they tax for must be for the general welfare, that is for the benefit of everyone. CLEARLY SS and medicare do not meat that criteria. Everyone is taxed for the benefit of the few.

People are also trying spin these taxes into the notion that 'well, they are making you buy a retirement fund and health insurance with these taxes, so of course they can make you purchase insurance privately'. Well that simply isn't true. When you buy something, it's yours. The fact is while you may get to use SS and medicare down the road, the money you are paying now is being used to pay for the benefits of other people.

Spidey has told us what grounds government can do this. I have detailed that argument a couple. I didn't put words in his mouth, I promise. He may disagree with what the ramifications and the 'logic' required to hold that position, but I believe it remains true none the less. I would encourage you to read it and see if you agree yourself.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792. which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that "each and every able bodied while male citizen" must "be enrolled in the military." Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the law additionally stated that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack and a pouch containing not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of the musket or the flintlock."

The new recruits were, of course, required to purchase all of the required equipment on their own, out of their own resources, prior to showing up for active duty.

Source: States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side - latimes.com

 

[Bern80]

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.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792. which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that "each and every able bodied while male citizen" must "be enrolled in the military." Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the law additionally stated that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack and a pouch containing not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of the musket or the flintlock."

The new recruits were, of course, required to purchase all of the required equipment on their own, out of their own resources, prior to showing up for active duty.

Source: States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side - latimes.com

In regards to the title of your link, I would say we do have precedent on our side considering we don't do that anymore. Aren't you the least bit curious about that?

Interesting what you decided to quote, but still can not offer an answer as to what government can't make you do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure, I understand you, and I assure you that the bill is constitutional. SCOTUS will find the issue of having to buy a private product, instead of a private one, an argument without standing. The vote will be 9-0, perhaps 7-2 at the least, in favor of the legislation.

I will remind you of that. And if i am wrong, I will let you know about that also.

On what grounds? Why would they do that knowing the nearly unlimited power it grants the fed and knowing that one of the central purposes of the constitution was to LIMIT the power of the fed? You do understand the purpose of the constitution is to GRANT the government powers, right? What the legislature can do is detailed in Article 1, Section 8, and tell people what they must privately purchase ain't there.

One thing not mentioned is that the Commerce clause requires that uniform laws be passed.

The Health care bill does not pass a uniform law as we have seen some states and unions have received special consideration.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

In your world it would mean that for the act of murder to be illegal the penalty for it must be constitutional.

I have no idea what you're getting at here Bern80. You are far to removed from reality at this point for me to have any clue what you are talking bout. But I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that our Founders knew we would have murderers and would need to punish them. They, however, did not predict that we'd have people as idiotic as yourself.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A government mandate that everyone must purchase healthcare is constitutional.

I never said that Bern80. There is no government mandate to purchase healthcare. There is an income tax you will be required to pay if you do not purchase it. But you are completely free to choose to not buy insurance. If you make this choice you will be assessed a 2.5% tax under the authority of the 16h amendment. Just like if I choose not to spend $2000 a year on college tuition, I don't get $800 of it back as a tax credit. Sort of like how not donating $100,000 a year to charity also affects my tax picture in a negative way.

Wow - what a concept - my tax depends on choices I make. How ******* absurd. So absurd that mental midgets like Bern80 could not possibly fathom it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Is something in the constitution that tells them they have the power to tell the people what they must purchase from the government?

They have the power to tax income for just about whatever reason we the voter would like them to.



I underline we the voter to highlight what I think Bern80 - and possible yourself and others - are missing.


Bern80 seems to be under the impression that the Founders decided to devise a system of government that would beat all other systems for all time - regardless of the People.

They did not.

The Founders sought a form of government that ultimately would answer to
the PEOPLE. Hence WE THE PEOPLE.

They actually figured - and pay attention because this is going to sound insane to people like Bern80 - they actually figured that, given the right form of government - we could actually govern ourselves! The Founders truly believed they could create a government by, of, and for the People!

So here, well over 200 years later, we hear people like Bern80 and the Teabaggers yapping on and on about "what the Founders would have wanted". Well guess what jackasses? The Founders wanted us to govern ourselves! They didn't want public health care at the time, so they didn't have it! But guess what Teabaggers!! Health care reform was one of the biggest parts of Obamas platform, and he was elected with 365 electoral votes - more votes than any President in this millenium. So we sent him there to do it. If you don't like it - sorry - your side lost. Stop your bitchng and your whining and your "OOO, but the FOUNDERS wouldn't have wanted it!" - doesn't matter what the Founders wanted jackasses, they are long dead. They gave us a framework to govern ourselves - not a suicide pact that must be adhered to for all eternity.

Does Article 1 section 8 give them the power to do such?

its actually the 16th amendment that confers the authority to tax income.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One thing not mentioned is that the Commerce clause requires that uniform laws be passed.

The Commerce clause says

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Says nothing about uniform laws there. But hey, don't let the actual text of the Constitution get in the way of what you'd like it to say. If there's anything I've learned from debating Constitutional law with you and Bern80 and others like you - its that the actual real world does not matter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One thing not mentioned is that the Commerce clause requires that uniform laws be passed.

The Commerce clause says

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Says nothing about uniform laws there. But hey, don't let the actual text of the Constitution get in the way of what you'd like it to say. If there's anything I've learned from debating Constitutional law with you and Bern80 and others like you - its that the actual real world does not matter.

You didn't quote the entire article did you?

It does say uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcy.

But Shouldn't all laws be uniformly applied?

 

[Bern80]

In your world it would mean that for the act of murder to be illegal the penalty for it must be constitutional.

I have no idea what you're getting at here Bern80. You are far to removed from reality at this point for me to have any clue what you are talking bout. But I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that our Founders knew we would have murderers and would need to punish them. They, however, did not predict that we'd have people as idiotic as yourself.

You said the isnruance mandate is constitutional IF a tax is collected for non-compliance. But not constitutional if they can put you in jail for non-compliance. Ergo, in your world the constitutionality of laws in your world is dependent on whether the penalty for violating them is constitutional. I simply applied your 'logic' to other laws to illustrate the ridiculousness of it.

 

[Bern80]

Is something in the constitution that tells them they have the power to tell the people what they must purchase from the government?

They have the power to tax income for just about whatever reason we the voter would like them to.



I underline we the voter to highlight what I think Bern80 - and possible yourself and others - are missing.


Bern80 seems to be under the impression that the Founders decided to devise a system of government that would beat all other systems for all time - regardless of the People.

They did not.

The Founders sought a form of government that ultimately would answer to
the PEOPLE. Hence WE THE PEOPLE.

They actually figured - and pay attention because this is going to sound insane to people like Bern80 - they actually figured that, given the right form of government - we could actually govern ourselves! The Founders truly believed they could create a government by, of, and for the People!

So here, well over 200 years later, we hear people like Bern80 and the Teabaggers yapping on and on about "what the Founders would have wanted". Well guess what jackasses? The Founders wanted us to govern ourselves! They didn't want public health care at the time, so they didn't have it! But guess what Teabaggers!! Health care reform was one of the biggest parts of Obamas platform, and he was elected with 365 electoral votes - more votes than any President in this millenium. So we sent him there to do it. If you don't like it - sorry - your side lost. Stop your bitchng and your whining and your "OOO, but the FOUNDERS wouldn't have wanted it!" - doesn't matter what the Founders wanted jackasses, they are long dead. They gave us a framework to govern ourselves - not a suicide pact that must be adhered to for all eternity.

Then why did they write a constitution that tells government the rules it must operate under? They intended no such thing. They intended to form a government that could not possibly become tyranical and over powere with a system of checks and balances. It was NOT their intent that the only check against a government passing whatever laws it wanted be the will of the voters.

Your interpretation doesn't make government answer to the voters. It grants government nearly unlimited power. You have better mind reading skills than I do I guess if you think the framers intended for the only stop gap to tyranny to be the voters. Doesn't really explain why they wrote this big long document detailing the rules of government either. One intent we do know however is that they intended for the central government to have LIMITED power. Your interpretation would allow nearly unlimited power to tax people for every last dime for not complying with whatever government felt like making you do.

its actually the 16th amendment that confers the authority to tax income.

Article 1 Section 8 occurs before the amenments in the constitution as part of the preamble. The preamble is what sets the ruiles of the various branches of government. Article 1, section 8 tells what the federal legislature can do. Tell people what they must privately purchase IS NOT THERE. Yes government can tax. The CAN NOT pass whatever laws they like in hopes that people will violate them as an excuse to collect that tax. Any law must be constitutional on its own merit.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One thing not mentioned is that the Commerce clause requires that uniform laws be passed.

The Commerce clause says

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Says nothing about uniform laws there. But hey, don't let the actual text of the Constitution get in the way of what you'd like it to say. If there's anything I've learned from debating Constitutional law with you and Bern80 and others like you - its that the actual real world does not matter.

You didn't quote the entire article did you?

It does say uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcy.

That's great but you were referring to the Commerce clause. Not all that much going on up there, eh?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

. But not constitutional if they can put you in jail for non-compliance.

Wrong. The federal government has more than enough constitutional authority to jail people for not paying taxes.

Ergo, in your world the constitutionality of laws in your world is dependent on whether the penalty for violating them is constitutional.

Why do you insist on continued nonsensical babbling Bern?

 

[Bern80]

Wrong. The federal government has more than enough constitutional authority to jail people for not paying taxes.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of what you said. I asked you if the penalty for not buying health insurance was you could be prosecuted and go to jail INSTEAD OF paying a tax, would the mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance still be constitutional. You said in that case no it would not.

Thus ........

in your world the constitutionality of laws is dependent on whether the penalty for violating them is constitutional.

And you're right that doesn't make any sense at all. Problem is you said it, not me.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792. which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that "each and every able bodied while male citizen" must "be enrolled in the military." Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the law additionally stated that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack and a pouch containing not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of the musket or the flintlock."

The new recruits were, of course, required to purchase all of the required equipment on their own, out of their own resources, prior to showing up for active duty.

Source: States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side - latimes.com

In regards to the title of your link, I would say we do have precedent on our side considering we don't do that anymore. Aren't you the least bit curious about that?

Interesting what you decided to quote, but still can not offer an answer as to what government can't make you do.

The government cannot make you do (or purchase) anything that is violative of Due Process of Law.

 

[Bern80]

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792. which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that "each and every able bodied while male citizen" must "be enrolled in the military." Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the law additionally stated that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack and a pouch containing not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of the musket or the flintlock."

The new recruits were, of course, required to purchase all of the required equipment on their own, out of their own resources, prior to showing up for active duty.

Source: States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side - latimes.com

In regards to the title of your link, I would say we do have precedent on our side considering we don't do that anymore. Aren't you the least bit curious about that?

Interesting what you decided to quote, but still can not offer an answer as to what government can't make you do.

The government cannot make you do (or purchase) anything that is violative of Due Process of Law.

I see, so if government were to require you to purchase a Prius, that would not be a violation of due process according to you, correct?

 

[George Costanza]

You have essentially stated the the reason it is legal to incarcerate people for murder is BECAUSE we can put them in jail for it.

No, the reason its legal to incarcerate people for murder is our legislative bodies have passed laws stating it is legal to incarcerate people for murder.

I'm not sure how much more I can dumb this down for you spidey.

In your world it would mean that for the act of murder to be illegal the penalty for it must be constitutional. The fact that you have taken the life of someone else would have no bearing on the legality of it.

Is this Ihopehefails? It IS, isn't it . . .