It’s come down to this. From the WSJ:
The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.
The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.
The most important legal challenge turns on the “individual mandate”—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that “I absolutely reject that notion” that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.
As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, “Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.” The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.
Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.”
[…]
All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can’t Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?
— Quick note: when I wrote about just such a thing last week — in response mandatory food labeling for chain restaurants — one liberal commenter elsewhere suggested I was “foaming” at the government, and that such a slippery slope as the one I described (and that is reiterated here by the Journal’s editorial writers, who presumably share my crazed “market anarchist” sentiments) is the fantasy of a reactionary paranoiac railing against a solicitous government. But as should be evident, the potential legality of just such a thing is what should concern all of us. To my mind, the notion that because such a contingency seems unlikely now it won’t eventually seem necessary to some nannystatist looking out for our best interests, is at best naive. After all, as I pointed out, proponents of the government’s war against “big tobacco” laughed at the argument that the next target of the health police would be food. Yet here we are — and the same people are laughing dismissively, even as the government assumes more and more control over private enterprise.
But I digress:
Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states’s rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.
The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground. Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law’s constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don’t give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.
Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn’t be able to trample the Constitution as well.
They shouldn’t, true. But as Raich showed — and Kelo before that — even conservative justices are willing to join in to set bad precedent, and the SCOTUS, on the whole, seems entirely unwilling to walk back even the most dangerous and wrongheaded of previous court decisions, either out of some restrictive principle (stare decisis), or else a sense of respect and collegiality that, frankly, has nothing to do with the law.
Raich, sadly, has opened the door for a ruling in favor of ObamaCare’s constitutionality. And if that is indeed the outcome, the Constitution — by way of the Commerce Clause — will have, according to the court charged with materially upholding it, ruled itself effectively moot.
(h/t TerryH)
I rather doubt the Framers of the Constitution had any inkling that the Commerce Clause would become such a poison pill.
I was, however, heartened by the Citizens United decision. (More on which here)
I was, however, heartened by the Citizens United decision. (More on which here)
The ruling class ceased giving a flying fuck about the Constitution a long time ago. It would be nice to think that SCOTUS cared a little, but as Citizens United v FEC showed, there are more than a few there who couldn’t care less about it either.
The great tragedy of the last hundred years has been the Western intelligentsia’s dedication to rent-seeking via government tyranny. This has included large numbers of academics, journalists, attorneys and–most treasonous to our founding principles–judges.
My missus, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat has been driven to distraction by the nonsense coming out in the aftermath of Citizens United v. FEC. Contrary to the feelings of Prof. Kitely and his ilk, I am finding some measure of success, at least in some quarters, in having more information, better analysis, and more thoughtful argumentation. I don’t know that these successes can be replicated outside the Casa BRD, but the fact that they are at least working here at all gives me some measure of hope that there is at least some sort of brake on the propensity to veer off into progressive idiocy.
I rather doubt the Framers of the Constitution had any inkling that the Commerce Clause would become such a poison pill.
Of course not. They meant it to enforce free trade among the states. It has, instead, been used as the wedge for government to pry its way into our daily lives.
“…. a way to restore the states’s rights of Jim Crow.”
Invented and imposed by the Democrats.
Just an FYI.
I occasionally still hang out at a certain very left leaning site in which I am considered a troll. At that site I recently had a discussion with one of the inhabitants on this very issue in which they made what I thought was a very interesting point. If you frame the individual mandate, or rather the “penalty” for failure to obtain health insurance as a simple tax then the removal of paying that tax by obtaining insurance is in line with the sort of tax breaks that the government gives for mortgage payments or tuition. I have a hard time dismissing that notion outright. I also have a hard time holding out any hope that the USSC will do anything other than allow the commerce clause to mean anything that the legislature wants it to mean.
From the article:
Not sure that addresses your question directly, Makewi. But it seems on point at first blush.
You neither have to buy a mortgage nor go to school. You do have to live (or die, of course). The only way out of this “tax” is to die or purchase a product.
I don’t think any tax breaks are applied to things you actually have to purchase, except for this new one.
Also, the sort of tax breaks that the government gives for mortgage payments or tuition is on a good or service you have sought out.
The health insurance (tax) is there only by virtue of you existing.
On the same page as cranky…
A good rhetorical response would be to posit a tax deduction or credit for not having an abortion.
I’d like to see their faces then.
Nice one, Alec. However, they would be more inclined to offer tax credits for having abortions. Just think of the political (and moral, in my mind) mess that would create.
Lee, I think yours was more succinct.
What? I can’t find any concievable way to misread the 16th amendment for that to follow.
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.
I agree that it is an argument over legal finesse. I also worry that it is likely to be a winning argument should it ever be put to the high court. Current law says that the federal government has the right to directly tax the people. It may be unprecedented, but the question is, is it legal?
I understand the difference between mortgage and tuition and this. So think of it this way. If you are not married you pay a higher tax. If you get married, you pay less. This is like that, or at least that is going to be the argument.
(Progg reading): Up to and including one hundred percent. Which, may as well have you purchase insurance, no?
In fact, as this is not an income tax, it is a direct tax and as such is still unconstitutional.
RTO. All our federal taxes are tied to income, yes? I mean our exemptions that we claim currently are all tied to the idea that we can pay less or more of our income based on what else we have going on in our life.
It’s worrisome, because I can see the court seeing the wisdom of these arguments. Hell, I see the wisdom of these arguments and I’m against ObamaCare.
Precisely why we need to fix the tax codes and get more libertarians on the bench.
You’ll have to show me precedent to that effect, to even entertain such an expansive understanding of income tax, Makewi.
You’ve got to win a little lose a little and always have the blues a little I think.
“They shouldn’t, true. But as Raich showed — and Kelo before that — even conservative justices are willing to join in to set bad precedent, and the SCOTUS, on the whole, seems entirely unwilling to walk back even the most dangerous and wrongheaded of previous court decisions, either out of some restrictive principle (stare decisis), or else a sense of respect and collegiality that, frankly, has nothing to do with the law.”
If that’s the case then SCOTUS will also be swept away in the revolution that will surely ensue sooner rather than later. After all, the Civil War, with its 600,000+ deaths, was, to a large extent, the result of multiple bone-headed decisions by SCOTUS not to mention rotten legislation and “compromises” by Congress.
huh? For reals?
Americans are going to do thee sweepings?
I see little to suggest we are a very sweepy people anymores.
*these* sweepings I mean there was supposed to be an s in there but it got left out
RTO
Abrams v. Commissioner
Sorry, can’t seem to find a link to the actual text of that decision. As to your entertaining the expansive understanding of income tax, I’m not sure how you argue against it since exemptions for mortgage, tuition, children, etc. do exist in the tax code and have nothing to do with the actual act of earning income.
President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert.
Oh, for the sake of Pete. Tell the truth: Candidate Obama lied about his position. President Obama merely removed the candidate’s mask.
such a slippery slope as the one I described … is the fantasy of a reactionary paranoiac
Uh, Marc? Upon enacting this bill? That was us already sliding down the slope.
because such a contingency seems unlikely now
Same to you, Jeff. It’s not the future contingencies that are the problem: it’s the present reality as well as a whole lot of overreach in the past that we’ve merely gotten used to.
We’ve been ON on the slippery slope of gubmint overreach since the birth of the progg movement, as early as Teddy Roosevelt and definitely by Woodrow Wilson *spit*.
What we have to worry about now is the cement slab at the bottom of the hill.
Which, if someone videos it, you should submit it to America’s Funniest Videos. You’re sure to win the $10 grand that week.
They aren’t taxation of mortgages and children, but a relief of the regular burden of income tax.
If HCR had included a increase in the tax rates of the income tax, and then offered a credit for those enrolled in qualifying insurance, that’d be what you dscribe. This isn’t that, however. It’s a separate tax, punitive in nature (and I think Icould make a case that it amounts to a bill of attainder) to boot.
This is be like levying a family tax, which you could only avoid by having a child.
RTO. Which goes back to what I initially stated in this thread. This is going to be argued as a simple tax, which is waived by provable acquisition of health care coverage. Whether that argument is legally compelling will be for the court to decide.
It isn’t clear that the questions being raised are strictly Constitutional questions in any event. Among other items enumerated here, for instance, we find:
I submit that if it wasn’t there the poisoners would have found something else to use as their vehicle to carry the foul brew to our lips. Their intent to do harm would have found some outlet.
The Commerce Clause has been an effective blank check for over seventy years. Any walk-back or restriction has been very limited. I really do not know if it could be walked back by the SCOTUS, if that is actually politically possible.
I realize that the courts are not an actively political body, but the courts have to be aware of politics. IIRC, Congress can remove things from the courts’ jurisdiction, and that has to be considered. (I don’t have my pocket copy of the US Constitution with me, or I would look it up.)
Can anyone use a laugh? Here was the Guardian’s April Fool’s funny.
I would be scared not to have insurance cause of they will put your name on a list.
BTW – If no one else has noted it, SEK has raised the ire of Ann Althouse. Some confusion about what he actually did (that dude can not write clearly, can he?) but he massively vexed her. I think he made a major mistake doing that as law professors are themselves professional word-smiths (law is made up from language and most lawyers – in my acquaintance – take speaking and writing very seriously*).
*Recently a lawyer from a large corporation used some language that could be interpreted as attacking the qualifications of the staff of a state regulatory agency. The decision-makers of that agency did not interpret the language that lawyer used in a manner that the corporation would have liked, and in its order that agency stated how unamused they were. In law, words have consequences.
this is OT, and yet tangential… it is a comment from out friend Mr. daleyrocks, and as you will see it is not good…
remember this video?
what a dick
wow that’s some orangey right there
Makewi:
Minor correction. The tax rate for marrieds filing jointly is a little deceptive. If a single person and a married couple have the same level of income, the married couple will pay less taxes. The problem is that it is two people being compared to one. If the married couple has the same income per person as the single person, the tax rate will be higher for the married couple.
Much of the misconception comes from the controversy that unmarried couples cannot claim married filing jointly status, which would generally reduce the tax rate for unmarried couples with a single income.
Anyway, digression over.
God as a magnet? More likely move over roofies.
*our* friend I mean
Too late, ‘feets, you outed him.
Congress can’t remove the high court, or it’s original jurisdiction (without an amendment). That’s granted by Art 3, Sec 2.
I know that. I was arguing from his (implied) premise to show that even that way it is naive.
#45:
You are correct. It is the other courts that Congress has created that have that threat over them. But the other threat is how the SCOTUS is constituted, “court packing” or court un-packing. There do not need to be nine members, and while there has before been no reduction in the number of justices, I do not recall anything that says that cannot be done.
I may be wrong (I admit not doing any research right now).
You are correct. It was a plan to do that by FDR that lead to the “Switch in time that saved nine” that lead to all this mess. The Court was dismantling the New Deal piecemeal and Justice Roberts, a cowardly move in my view–not shared by many, flipped changing the balance of the Court to pro-New Deal.
In my opinion, the court packing plan, if undertaken, would have completely backfired politically–it was a major factor as it was as well as the Recession of 1937, leading to greater Republican gains in Congress in ’38 (they addes 6 seats and control in the Senate and 81 and control in the House), making further New Deal progams less possible, and possibly even a Wilkie victory in 1940 who finished less than 5 million popular votes behind FDR anyway.
Perhaps Roberts was a victim of Judicial non-partisanship in that perhaps he wasn’t attuned to political tides. Whatever the case, it seems apparent to me that we’d be better off today if he’d stood on principle.
BTW, there were 10 justices between 1863 and 1866. The number started with 6 and grew, then was to be reduced to 7 by not replacing 3 retired justices after 1866. But in 1869, the number was set to 9, where it has stayed since.
No, but he can write a lot. That counts for something, doesn’t it?
Makewi and others: For what it’s worth, I’ve read quite a few pieces about the mandate/constitutionality question, written by top-end legal eagles at Volokh and elsewhere — including many, alas who think the courts will deem it constitutional — and I have not encountered the argument your friends are peddling.
It may very well be out there, and even prominently so, but I haven’t seen it.
If nothing else considering the argument has satisfied me that there’s more wrong with it than just over expansion of the Commerce Clause.
For what it’s worth, I think the government mandating a (non)participatory tax is questionable, and actionable. But allowing faceless corporations the right to act as individuals kind of moots that point.
Well, cynn, how do you want it? If coroporations can’t act as individuals, they also can’t be trated that way in law, such as being sued, corporately, or being held responsible for Civil Rights abuse. As well as how they are taxed.
Liberalism in a nutshell: I want it, therefore you should pay for it, and to hell with the Constitution.
Cynn:
The phrase “faceless corporation” sort of reeks of these guys. And that smell ain’t roses.
So now any faceless entity has the right of free speech. Nice gig, constitutionalist prig.
Will no one rid us of this troublesome First Amendment?
…And that would include any and all entities on the internet? So we can say what we want without criticism or sanction?
Hose crooked spews corp corp corp carp carp carp crap cabanaboy cockadoddles filthily pooling constitutionalists ap gak. Bundle squeezums, grrrr.
I don’t mind large groups of upper middle class liberals who wear smelly Birkenstocks and are angry pooling their money to do political ads. But not these racist corporate assholes in suits. They hate blacks and poors and they need to be stopped from speaking.
You’re not really getting this “free speech” thing are you cynn?
Ah. Non-sequiter cynn is back.
See, I can’t tell here whether you’re being wry. Is your great concern the source of the idea or the idea itself?
Pretty sure that criticism is part of the conversation. Sanction? As in public oppobrium or the force of government heel on the larynx. Former, hunky dory. Latter, less awesome.
If you’re playing at being ironic, apologies if I missed the joke.
Especially when I’m prohibited from commenting. There was a strange interval involving sdferr. I saw it myself. Please replicate. Thanks.
Just to clarify, cynn, the 1st amendment is a boundary on the government, not the citizen. Say whatever you wish.
Respects, all, but I just had a nasty-ass response as well as my own comments deleted here. Case in point.
Especially when I’m prohibited from commenting.
That’s a pretty big charge. Hope you can back it up.
I call bullshit.
What comments were deleted in this thread? I haven’t seen any comments disappear.
Oh, I see sdferr’s salient remarks are there. Sorry, I got flummoxed. At any rate, corporations are not citizens. If you truly believe they are, then mergers should be handled like any other marriage.
The people who comprise a corporation are citizens. As there aren’t any corporations that aren’t comprised of people, why make a distinction?
There’s also the very etymology of the word ‘incorporate’ to consider.
I’m a bit flummoxed, myself.
Duke, you’re right. I stand corrected. Must have been a glitch on my end.
Good on ya, cynn.
RTO: I continue to be amazed that you individualists support this outrageous Supreme Court decision. Corporations do not equal individuals and vice versa. Doesn’t much of it have to do with taxation and liability?
Corporations do not equal individuals and vice versa
go read the 1st Amendment again, cynn … “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. A group of people…ANY group of people cannot be discriminated against just because they have assembled in a group (freedom of association) and thus petition the Government [through the use of political speech, either in person or via media].
Then I take it you support trade unions, as well as their strikes.
To paraphrase an old newspaper editorial, leftists are horrified that the Supreme Court would stoop so low as to try to adhere to the Constitution.
Then I take it you support trade unions, as well as their strikes.
One can support the right of trade unions to strike while not supporting what they are striking for.
Corporate law predates any Supreme Court decision. We get our version from English Common Law. The first corporations were formed in the Roman Empire and in Ancient India. The oldest extant corporation is a mining concern in Sweeden that was incorporated in the 14th Century.
Mike LaRoche: Then I can oppose corporate speech while still accepting its existence.
Then I take it you support trade unions, as well as their strikes
cynn, I “support” unions just as I do corporations… I judge them on their behavior, not their status.
Then I can oppose corporate speech
Who said you couldn’t? Disagree with it all you like. Just don’t try to use the government to shut it down.
As an example of the alternative, when Henry Ford died, all those pension plans could have been canceled.
Oooh. Think of all the patents that could have been fair game. Of course that might have a chilling effect on innovation, but no matter, right?
Then I can oppose corporate speech while still accepting its existence.
Now you’re getting there. They can say it, you can oppose it. As long as the gov’t doesn’t outlaw it, we’re good.
I have a plan to bust the teacher’s unions.
Tort reform.
It should be seen for what it is: an abject rip-off.
Bald assertions are always so, you know, persuasive.
Who’s being ripped off? Incorporation provides legal remedies and imposes obligations that would otherwise be impossible.
Say, has anyone seen RoA around here lately?
I could sure use some sprinkles on this morning’s Malt-O-Meal.
I do wish videocam dude wouldn’t have chirped “jackpot,” though.
#90 guinsPen:
Unfortunately, there is no requirement that a member of Congress have a basic understanding of the founding documents of this country, and which documents are the basis of law (US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence) and what parts of that document are expressions of intent (Preamble to the US Constitution) and not a source for law (the rest of the US Constitution and its amendments).
But there should be.
Is it asking too much that our duly-elected Representatives be able to pass a US Citizenship test? (That is, the test that they give to people seeking to become full-fledged US citizens — not a test that the Reps are citizens. That should go without saying.)
Frankly, the same requirement ought to apply to the voters as well. You need a license to drive a car; recent events would seem to indicate that ill-informed voting has far greater consequences than simply plowing a car into the proverbial “bus-load of nuns”.
“Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law’s constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty”
Arguments for constitutionality are numerous and obvious. It’s not so hard to find them in the blogosphere. It will be interesting to see what these political entities, the AGs, finally decide to argue.
“The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.”
In the early republic congress also ordered all men to provide themselves with guns and gear for the militia. Ironically, congress was supposed to ‘provide for’ the militia, and chose to just tell them to provide themselves. But this won’t stop AGs or anyone else from saying this is the ‘first time’ that congress ordered people to buy a product from a private party. All other regulations which force transactions notwithstanding.
77.Comment by cynn on 4/2 @ 10:40 pm #
Then I take it you support trade unions, as well as their strikes.
Apples and submarines , my dear girl.
Do you have a cite for this? And what was the penalty if one refused?
Why every gun nut originalist knows of the second militia act!
Um, no. Not all men. Only those enrolled in the militia.
I have a question for you, kdash. Are you ignorant, are you lying or both?
Which does not say what you think it says.
“Um, no. Not all men. Only those enrolled in the militia. ”
Next you’ll tell me that this enrollment was voluntary.
Interesting. So in the early days of the Republic there were many citizens with little or no access — for want of funds — to the best health care available at the time, or even mediocre health care for that matter. There was a palpable inequality in the distribution of wealth in that day. Shocking, I know. Did the Government, thinking to remedy this “mal-distribution” in respect of equality of wealth, order a re-distribution of extant wealth from those with greater funds to the Government coffers so that the Government — brave nanny! — could then see after the needs of those citizens suffering from this unequal distribution, effectively transferring that wealth from the more well off to the worse? If not, one might wonder, why not? The situation was plain for anyone to see.
kdash, are you ignorant, lying or both?
This militia act is just a historical curiosity these days. It’s just a political retort to the political argument advanced by the AGs, among others, that this mandate is some ‘first time’ that citizens have been forced to buy a product or service. But let’s take it to court! It will be interesting to see what kinds of arguments they can honestly advance, what cases can be cited. Could there be a better use for taxpayer dollars?
Unfortunately, there is no requirement that a member of Congress have a basic understanding of the founding documents of this country
Mike
and considering the Democrat congresscritter who thinks islands can tip over and capsize, there seems to be no requirement for grade school science, either.
“But let’s take it to court! It will be interesting to see what kinds of arguments they can honestly advance, what cases can be cited. Could there be a better use for taxpayer dollars?”
Better than guarding the Constitution? No.
Could there be a better use for taxpayer dollars?
kdash, “better” is not relevant. Government power is constrained by the Constitution by its specific enumeration of what government is allowed to do. Providing for the national defense (raising armies, negotiating treaties), establishing courts and the specifics of government infrastructure are in there…
Federal requirement of purchasing a consumer product upon criminal penalty isn’t. (States are another matter)
If the Feds can say “buy health insurance or go to jail”, they can say “buy a GM car or go to jail”. What “better use” of taxpayers dollars then to boost the sails of the government owned auto company, right?
kdash, are you lying, ignorant, or both? If you’re going to keep teaching us about trooth, it would really help to know. I’m leaning toward “both”, but your confirmation would be appreciated.
Yeah, there’s no potential for payback there. What a waste of $350.00! What’s $999,999,650 among friends?
Oh, like the precedent of when every man, woman and child were required to buy and maintain a fleet of tanks and a small armada? kdash, are you lying, ignorant, or both?
Where does it imply “”that citizens have been forced to buy a product” there?
Sure it is
Which leads to such things as Kelo.
And don’t duck my question. If the Feds can force you to buy insurance, what stops them from forcing you to buy a GM car? Or to force you to spend the same amount on consumer goods in 2010 as you did in 2009? or 2008? WHERE can the line be drawn of how much micromanaging of an individual’s liberty can the Fed do when choice is now regulated by mandates?
See there, silly States? You don’t even know your own interests. Follow meya who knows far better than you, foolish Attorneys General. What an awful waste of time and effort, time which you could spend far better redistributing wealth, not to mention crippling the economy. Don’t even bother litigating the question since the issue has already been settled by meya the Constitutionalist. A more jealous lover of your interests you’ll never find.
Military folks have been forced to buy stuff. Still are, as a matter of fact.
“Yeah, there’s no potential for payback there. What a waste of $350.00! What’s $999,999,650 among friends?”
One fact is universal: The people of VA are no doubt overjoyed to learn that the AG and his staff work for free. I wonder if they get free lunches too.
However, one potential problem for the AG — he’s challenging the mandate, but that’s not what will cost VA money. Who knows, it may even save VA money. But these are details. Like I said, what the AGs are doing is politics. That’s not so concerned with details.
“Oh, like the precedent of when every man, woman and child were required to buy and maintain a fleet of tanks and a small armada? kdash, are you lying, ignorant, or both?”
No we just pay a tax and have the government do that for us.
“Where does it imply “”that citizens have been forced to buy a product” there?”
I wouldn’t say that is “impl[ied].”
“If the Feds can force you to buy insurance, what stops them from forcing you to buy a GM car?”
Constitutionally? Not much. They can tax me and buy a GM car and give it to me. Or they can tax me and offer me a rebate on that tax if signed up at the car exchange and got a GM car and the car exchange sent that info to the IRS. But what does actually stop them? That they wont get a majority in both houses (60 votes not being needed by the constitution).
I wouldn’t say that is “impl[ied].”
No, you would continue to be an evasive dick. It isn’t implied, and it isn’t stated. All it says is able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 need to obtain the proper equipment by their own recourse. They most likely already own it, if not they can indeed buy it, have it given to them by an older friend or relative, borrow it, or have it assigned to them from the armory of one of the multitude of local militias at the time.
It was not a mandate to purchase anything.
This troll well and truly sucks.
Constitutionally? Newer better sophistries for tyranny coming to a Congress near you. You only have to lie back and think of England.
Actually, it says that they must be enrolled by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company within whose bounds they reside. Then, once enrolled, they must obtain and maintain such equipment. It also makes quite a number of exceptions by which one could be an 18-45 y.o. male and not be required to be enrolled in the militia.
Shocking as it may seem to some, there’s an entire code of law that pertains only to those in the military and that imposes restrictions and obligations on them that have no Constitutional parallel in civilian law.
It’s a LIVING document!!!!
96.Comment by kdash on 4/4 @ 9:18 am #
Why every gun nut originalist knows of the second militia act!
see #94 above.
For that matter, I think everyone here would be in agreement with a Federal mandate that all citizens are from this point on responsible for procuring their own health care.
The people of VA are no doubt overjoyed to learn that the AG and his staff work for free
what fuckin idiot. AG’s and staff are salaried regardless of how many cases they take. VA has a state constitutional amendment that precludes mandated health insurance. AG’s are supposed to defend their state constitutions.
kdash…you like think the VA AG should emulate CA AG Jerry Brown who picks and choses which cases he’ll go after based on his own personal politics?
choses = chooses
“what fuckin idiot. AG’s and staff are salaried regardless of how many cases they take”
Apparently there isn’t even an opportunity cost. They’re just that AWESOME at being lawyers.
“kdash…you like think the VA AG should emulate CA AG Jerry Brown who picks and choses which cases he’ll go after based on his own personal politics?”
Should? I’ve made it clear this is what the AGs are doing. Haven’t you read my comments?
I don’t care who you are, that right there is funny!
kdash
I asked you SPECIFICALLY about the VA AG. Under his duties as a state AG he would be negligent NOT to pursue a case against the Feds since it seeks to negate the will of the People in VA.
In CA, Jerry Brown has refused to defend the State Constitution.
Assert, dodge, assert, dodge, lather, rinse, repeat. This one isn’t programmed for direct response.
Pablo – It is not so much that it is not programmed for direct response, but that its next response is in no way effected by any input since its last response. It is primarily an output generator.
Tomato, tomahto, let’s call kdash off.
[…] already detailed how the ever-malleable Commerce Clause, after Raich, could hurt constitutional challenges to […]