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

[George Costanza]

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?

It probably would be. Like others, I'm not at all sure where you are going with this thread.

Let's see - some examples of things which, if the government required you to purchase them, it would be violative of Due Process. OK - shares of stock in a company owned by the President. A live frog. A trip on a cruise ship. A partridge in a pear tree. A golden retriever. Six bags of planting mix.

Need I continue?

 

[Bern80]

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?

It probably would be. Like others, I'm not at all sure where you are going with this thread.

Let's see - some examples of things which, if the government required you to purchase them, it would be violative of Due Process. OK - shares of stock in a company owned by the President. A live frog. A trip on a cruise ship. A partridge in a pear tree. A golden retriever. Six bags of planting mix.

Need I continue?

Where I am going with this is if government can't make you purchase all the things you say they can't above, why CAN they make you purchase private health insurance? What variable changed that makes it okay for government to require that, but not okay for them to require the other things you mentioned?

 

[George Costanza]

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?

It probably would be. Like others, I'm not at all sure where you are going with this thread.

Let's see - some examples of things which, if the government required you to purchase them, it would be violative of Due Process. OK - shares of stock in a company owned by the President. A live frog. A trip on a cruise ship. A partridge in a pear tree. A golden retriever. Six bags of planting mix.

Need I continue?

Where I am going with this is if government can't make you purchase all the things you say they can't above, why CAN they make you purchase private health insurance? What variable changed that makes it okay for government to require that, but not okay for them to require the other things you mentioned?

I can't speak for the government, but I would suspect it is something like the common welfare. If a significant portion of our population has no health insurance, a huge problem is created - obviously; a problem so vast that it weighs down on our entire society. The present system is designed to fix that problem.

Earlier, you mentioned a situation where the government requires everyone to buy a Prius. I can imagine a situation where something like that might happen - can't you? Some type of catastrophic, oil/energy crisis where the only way to save our society is to require everyone to drive cars that get more than 30 miles per gallon or whatever it is that Prius's get.

When a problem reaches such proportions that it threatens our entire society, the government has the power to fix it. That's what's happening here, seems to me.

BTW - thanks for the clarification on where you are going with this. It's a good question to ask.

 

[Bern80]

I can't speak for the government, but I would suspect it is something like the common welfare. If a significant portion of our population has no health insurance, a huge problem is created - obviously; a problem so vast that it weighs down on our entire society. The present system is designed to fix that problem.

Here is the clause you are referring to:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Meaning government may TAX for the general welfare. Not make people buy health insurance or cars for the general welfare.

Earlier, you mentioned a situation where the government requires everyone to buy a Prius. I can imagine a situation where something like that might happen - can't you? Some type of catastrophic, oil/energy crisis where the only way to save our society is to require everyone to drive cars that get more than 30 miles per gallon or whatever it is that Prius's get.

When a problem reaches such proportions that it threatens our entire society, the government has the power to fix it. That's what's happening here, seems to me.

BTW - thanks for the clarification on where you are going with this. It's a good question to ask.

yes they have the power to fix things........within the boundaries of the Constitution. They aren't granted the power in the constitution to make a bunch of myriad requirements of the citizenry. If we really are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness there is little I can find that runs counter to that more than an interpretation that says government can make you do pretty much anything as long as it taxes for non-compliance (again spidey's argument, not yours).

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Bern, shut the **** up

 

[Bern80]

Bern, shut the **** up

No thanks. And noted that you don't actually deny it. The only issue here is you don't understand the faulty logic you have employed to reach that conclusion. I understand when I try to explain back to you the things YOU said, it may not make a lot of sense. It doesn't make any sense to me either. But again all I'm doing is repeating your own position back to you. You apparently just haven't thought about it much or how it would be applied to other scenarios.

 

[George Costanza]

Here is the clause you are referring to:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Meaning government may TAX for the general welfare. Not make people buy health insurance or cars for the general welfare.

My understanding of the wording of the Commerce Clause is, that it gives Congress the power:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The operative portion here is, "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states," meaning just what it says: that Congress has the power to regulate commerce and to enact laws which are binding on the states when so doing.

As such, Congress can most certainly do what it is doing in the health care arena, provided it is legitmately within the ambit of the Commerce Clause. I believe that it is.

 

[Bern80]

Here is the clause you are referring to:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Meaning government may TAX for the general welfare. Not make people buy health insurance or cars for the general welfare.

My understanding of the wording of the Commerce Clause is, that it gives Congress the power:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The operative portion here is, "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states," meaning just what it says: that Congress has the power to regulate commerce and to enact laws which are binding on the states when so doing.

As such, Congress can most certainly do what it is doing in the health care arena, provided it is legitmately within the ambit of the Commerce Clause. I believe that it is.

I guess if you interpret the authority to regulate as meaning the authority to dictate who must purchase what from whom. That isn't regulating commerce. That's mandating commerce. Again you have to look at the really scary slippery slope you're going down by granting government power that expansive, invoke a little common sense and ask yourself whether it makes sense it what the framers intended to be a free socieity with a centralized government that was to have limited power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here is the clause you are referring to:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Meaning government may TAX for the general welfare. Not make people buy health insurance or cars for the general welfare.

My understanding of the wording of the Commerce Clause is, that it gives Congress the power:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The operative portion here is, "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states," meaning just what it says: that Congress has the power to regulate commerce and to enact laws which are binding on the states when so doing.

As such, Congress can most certainly do what it is doing in the health care arena, provided it is legitmately within the ambit of the Commerce Clause. I believe that it is.

You forget that no health insurance company can sell its products beyond the border it of the state in which it resides.

Therefore government is exercising control over intrastate commerce is it not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unless the insurance companies have offices in variou states, hmmmm?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Unless the insurance companies have offices in variou states, hmmmm?

No you're wrong.

Health insurance laws are very specific. Each insurance company's offices in every state are considered separate entities even if they are all owned by the same company.

I cannot buy a policy from Blue Cross in another state even though there are BC offices and premium rates vary from state to state as do many other specifics.

Blue Cross, Minnesota for example is not the same company as Blue Cross New York even though they are both owned by a parent company.

But even if you were right (you're not but I'll humor you) what if I bought my policy from a company that only operated in my state with no other offices anywhere in the country?

Again that is not interstate commerce is it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your example would be controlled by ICC because of the interstate nature of communications and banking that affects the company. The way to avoid the ICC would be to make each state insurance company its own independent company. The feds would demand, I imagine, that the companies prove they have no interlocking communications or banking across the state lines.

 

[Bern80]

Your example would be controlled by ICC because of the interstate nature of communications and banking that affects the company. The way to avoid the ICC would be to make each state insurance company its own independent company. The feds would demand, I imagine, that the companies prove they have no interlocking communications or banking across the state lines.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't really answer the questions as to how exactly the commerce clause grants authoirty to the government to make people buy things. Regulating commerce is one thing. Creating it is another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The SCOTUS will handle that.

 

[antagon]

That part of the bill is unconstitutional.

No it isn't. Its an income tax levied under authority of the 16th amendment.

Thats a good stretch...lets say I buy your argument.

All taxes shall be uniform is also in the constitution, so the PROGRESSIVE income tax structure is unconstitutional.

Enjoy the continuing erosion of your liberty, i know you will remain blissfully unaware of the unintended consequences.

put down the constitution, buffoon. the constitution states that the tax has to be uniform across states, not individuals.

 

[Contumacious]

“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said.

Don't these ******* morons realize that the federal government already requires citizens purchase medicare? You don't think the Justices who hear this crap are going to get a laugh when they ask the question "Where the **** was your whining in 1965 when Medicare got passed" ?

The Justices will have a golden opportunity to reverse all the laws creating the US welfare state.

.

 

[Bern80]

The SCOTUS will handle that.

Which is just a weasely way of saying you can't come up with a reasonable argument that it does grant that level of power. The Supreme Court will only decide the issue if a case is brought forth challenging it. And it really is a shame it needs to go that far. That we need a body to repeal laws that are blatantly unconstitutional by a legislature and president who sware an oath to defend that document. Personally i dont think they are trying to defy the document so to speak. I think it just doesn't even enter their brains to first find out if their brilliant ideas are actually constitutional.

 

[antagon]

but bern, isn't this whole thread about people presenting arguments you wont accept?

 

[Maple]

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.

16 states have now filed suit, they beleive it is in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. The Federal government has NEVER required anyone to purchase any product or service. Mandatory health insurance- is a product, not a tax. If they can do this it will open a flood gate for other mandatory purchases, the feds could come in and make you purchase a treadmill or a gym membership to go along with your health insurance. It's a huge can of worms, what else will they make you purchase.

The opposing argument- is that many states require you to purchase auto insurances, the difference is- people do not have to drive- driving is a priveledge and if you are going to drive you are required to have insurance. If you don't drive or own a vehicle- the mandatory requirement for you does not exist.

This mandatory clause is that if you are just breathing the air, sitting on your sofa, you are required to pay for a health insurance plan.

If this health care plan would have been done right, with bi-partisan support it would have had measures that reduced the COST of health care insurance, thereby enabling a more affordable solution for people, which would encourage people to purchase a plan. That was not done, so in reality, you have a government takeover of 6 % of our economy.

Medicare was stated at the time to be 1/10th of the cost it is today. The same will happen with this massive NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. Medicare, Medicaid, the postal service, Freddie and Fannie, Social Security- all are BANKRUPT at the hands of the government.

 

[antagon]

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.

16 states have now filed suit, they beleive it is in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. The Federal government has NEVER required anyone to purchase any product or service. Mandatory health insurance- is a product, not a tax. If they can do this it will open a flood gate for other mandatory purchases, the feds could come in and make you purchase a treadmill or a gym membership to go along with your health insurance. It's a huge can of worms, what else will they make you purchase.

The opposing argument- is that many states require you to purchase auto insurances, the difference is- people do not have to drive- driving is a priveledge and if you are going to drive you are required to have insurance. If you don't drive or own a vehicle- the mandatory requirement for you does not exist.

This mandatory clause is that if you are just breathing the air, sitting on your sofa, you are required to pay for a health insurance plan.

If this health care plan would have been done right, with bi-partisan support it would have had measures that reduced the COST of health care insurance, thereby enabling a more affordable solution for people, which would encourage people to purchase a plan. That was not done, so in reality, you have a government takeover of 6 % of our economy.

Medicare was stated at the time to be 1/10th of the cost it is today. The same will happen with this massive NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. Medicare, Medicaid, the postal service, Freddie and Fannie, Social Security- all are BANKRUPT at the hands of the government.

there's no 'requirement', mape.

the ICC certainly allows regulation of private health care... that has been done before numerous times and passed scrutiny.

the 16th and the tax/spend clause certainly allow the government to tax its citizens... a couple centuries of precedent there.

if you have no income, furthermore, you dont have any tax to pay. In fact, we have a negative liability before we account for our income.

the man giveth, the man taketh away. the constitution standeth on the sideline and sayeth nothing about it.