patrick.net

Is it Constitutional to collect Income Taxes? How about Social Security?

where is it in the Constitution that the power is granted to the federal government to force Americans to purchase anything from the private sector

Basically the interstate commerce clause.

From the Lopez decision:

"[The Gun control law under review] cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce."

Health care is one-sixth of our economy and will rise to one-fifth or more later this century. Regulating it is well within Congress' constitutional powers.

Don't get the nuts started on social security plz.

Vicente says

Is it Constitutional to collect Income Taxes? How about Social Security?

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

Once again, the constitution does NOT "enable" the federal government to do anything. What it does is:

1. Establish the structure and rules of government.
2. Define rights for the people that can not be infringed upon by any law.
3. Enumerate things that the government must do.

Yes, states have the right to pass legislation overruling federal law (except on items reserved to the federal government). Most states are run by sissies who won't challenge anything (war on drugs, anyone?) though.

I'm pretty sure that if a state wanted to "opt out" of a federal insurance requirement they could do so, and the Supreme Court would hold up that right. No state is going to do it though, because, again, they're run by sissies.

Unprecedented? Eh, kind of, though I can point to several things that the government requires you to do that probably establish precedent, but unless you can point me to a specific section of the constitution that such a law would violate, I'm going to have to say that you don't know what you're talking about.

Kevin says

Unprecedented? Eh, kind of, though I can point to several things that the government requires you to do that probably establish precedent, but unless you can point me to a specific section of the constitution that such a law would violate, I’m going to have to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Uhhhh, the question here is not what the "government requires" but, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product, in this case health insurance. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

RayAmerica says

.... UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

Do you live in the USA? I wonder..... after all you cannot drive on a public road AFAICR without proof of PRIVATE insurance. Although that is state law not Federal, it's a simple and direct analog. There are numerous other Federal examples where they are taking my tax dollars and giving it to private parties. I oppose the tax dollars used to enrich Blackwater, Halliiburton, and KBR. I don't believe the "product" there which was sold to me fraudulently as anti-terrorist tools, have delivered promised results and is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than friggin Toyota Brake Scare! But I believe the government did follow normal procedures for procurement even if I disagree with implementation.

Vicente says

Do you live in the USA? I wonder….. after all you cannot drive on a public road AFAICR without proof of PRIVATE insurance. Although that is state law not Federal, it’s a simple and direct analog.

Nice try. This is a common argument but has nothing in common with being forced to buy private healthcare insurance. Why? Because driving a car is a privilege (not a right) and a personal choice. No one forces you to own or drive a car. Your illustration of Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. is taxpayers' money that is INDIRECTLY used. Nowhere are you forced to purchase directly, with your after taxes money, from your private funds, anything directly from a private source.

I have a list of things taken out of my paycheck already before taxes. However you discount the analogy, your Constitution-as-a-shield argument hasn't held much water in a VERY long time. We can argue whether it should or not, but the simple fact of the matter is that PRACTICALLY speaking the courts do not interpret the Constitution of the United States in as rigid a manner as the people who treat it as a Bible.

You guys are looking at the wrong place for this answer. The answer depends on the makeup of the Supreme Court. With Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Scalia's copycat (Thomas) and Kennedy, there's little chance this will be held constitutional regardless of what the Constitution actually says.

Well, I guess the thing is that no one is being forced to buy anything. You can opt out and pay the fee. As with car insurance. And if you opt out of health insurance, you really should pay a fee, because no matter how healthy you are, you can have an accident or get unexpectedly ill. And, should that happen, and should you not have the financial resources to cover, say, a kidney transplant and ongoing medication for the rest of your life, well, the hospital is not going to just put you out on the street to die. They will do their level best to fix you, and then they will find a way to charge your bill to some level of government. Which is, overall, a nice thing, insofar as you don't have to die just then, even if you don't have the money to pay for all that treatment. But it would be nice if the government could start setting aside a little fund for those unexpected accidents and illnesses that keep coming up.

Even now, if you don't have health insurance, you are riding on luck and the expectation that your neighbors' taxes will cover you if your luck runs out. Some people do this as a matter of choice. They believe themselves to be healthy enough, and they can accumulate more wealth if they don't pay into the health care system which will ultimately support them to some degree if they fall ill. Others genuinely cannot afford to pay health insurance, maybe they work contract, maybe their employer does not cover the cost of insurance, maybe they are unemployed. In those cases we really need to figure out how to cover those people, because if they have no insurance, we are all paying their medical bills, and we will continue to do so.

I would like to see any movement forward on this issue, honestly. Let's try something. What we have is astonishingly broken. There is no perfect answer, but maybe perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Troy says

where is it in the Constitution that the power is granted to the federal government to force Americans to purchase anything from the private sector
Basically the interstate commerce clause.
From the Lopez decision:
“[The Gun control law under review] cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.”
Health care is one-sixth of our economy and will rise to one-fifth or more later this century. Regulating it is well within Congress’ constitutional powers.

There you have it. You can use the interstate commerce clause to regulate anything you want.

Vicente says

I have a list of things taken out of my paycheck already before taxes. However you discount the analogy, your Constitution-as-a-shield argument hasn’t held much water in a VERY long time. We can argue whether it should or not, but the simple fact of the matter is that PRACTICALLY speaking the courts do not interpret the Constitution of the United States in as rigid a manner as the people who treat it as a Bible.

"The constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

I take the Constitution seriously myself. However I have no illusions that most do not. Let's say I were a proponent of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for one example. How's that working out? Not so good. Nearly everything else you can point to in the Constitution and say "I think it means this" well some other folks have carried on as though it means THAT for decades and got away with it. That's why starting out with Constitutional arguments doesn't carry much weight these days, we are much too far down that road. You just end up looking like a Teabagger wearing a powdered wig and carrying a musket. So, by all means take aim at your foot and squeeze....

Vicente says

I take the Constitution seriously myself. However I have no illusions that most do not. Let’s say I were a proponent of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for one example. How’s that working out? Not so good. Nearly everything else you can point to in the Constitution and say “I think it means this” well some other folks have carried on as though it means THAT for decades and got away with it. That’s why starting out with Constitutional arguments doesn’t carry much weight these days, we are much too far down that road. You just end up looking like a Teabagger wearing a powdered wig and carrying a musket. So, by all means take aim at your foot and squeeze….

So you say that you take the Constitution seriously, then make the argument that no one should really take it seriously because no one does anymore, and those citizens that happen to still do so deserve to be referred to with vulgar, sexual references (assumedly because that's how Anderson Cooper and MSNBC hosts told you to refer to them...)...

Also, you say you take it seriously, but then imply that you are NOT a proponent of the right to keep and bear arms? How do you reconcile that? And what do you mean, "how s that workng out? Not so good." ???

Man you are determined aren't you. I can claim it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to regulate my interstate highways, or collect my income tax, or take part of my paycheck and call it Social Security. We can go on at length about the the Interstate Commerce Clause is used to cover.... nearly anything.

I'm from the Deep South. There are plenty of people there who think "the South will rise again boys, save your Confederate money!". Forgive me if I consider people who are still mentally fighting soon 150 years old war to be "not right in the head".

Similarly this Constitutional argument is reaching quite a bit, and steps right over the FACT that people have allowed all kinds of "Constitutional abrogations" but of course THIS is the one that'll get them riled up and we'll have our Boston Tea Party and then boy howdy!

The only people you'll attract with this argument are the Glenn Beck fan club.

LOL, unable to answer the question except with the conclusion that, apparently, because Constitutional abrogations have happened, the argument is moot when you agree with the abrogation? Therefore, this is OK, as is abrogating the 2nd Amendment, but at the same time, you take the Constitution "seriously...." LOL.

Vicente says

Similarly this Constitutional argument is reaching quite a bit, and steps right over the FACT that people have allowed all kinds of “Constitutional abrogations” but of course THIS is the one that’ll get them riled up and we’ll have our Boston Tea Party and then boy howdy!

It seems to me you are saying: "I agree the Constitution is the law of the land, but because so many people ignore it, I guess we should too, because that's the trend." It's kind of obvious what side you would have been on back in the Founders' days.

Without the Constitution, we are left to trusting politicians and their appointed surrogate judges to ‘protect’ us from the obtrusive powers of the central government. The Constitution was designed to LIMIT these powers. When the American people collectively decide the Constitution is no longer a necessary force in limiting centralized power, totalitarianism will soon follow.

Paralithodes says

LOL, unable to answer the question except with the conclusion that, apparently, because Constitutional abrogations have happened, the argument is moot when you agree with the abrogation? Therefore, this is OK, as is abrogating the 2nd Amendment, but at the same time, you take the Constitution “seriously….” LOL.

Great job at pointing out the mental gymnastics required for such convoluted reasoning.

No mental gymnastics required on my end, that's your specialty.

The lack of YEAH CONSTITUTION RULEZ & DOWN WITH OBAMACARE comments from anyone other than you two, should indicate something to you. Of course it doesn't.

I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of personality.

Pehaps this post is actually proposing single-payer? After all, there's no doubt that taxes are constitutional. The income tax even has its own amendment. And the govt can obviously spend tax money. So if it's not constitutional to require purchase of insurance, we'll have to go single-payer.

The commerce clause is one of the stretchiest clauses in the constitution. For years GOPers have interpreted this to mean that the DEA can go after people growing their own marijuana for use in their own state. So it's neither interstate nor commerce. Healthcare is far more relevant to interstate commerce since there's usually interstate companies involved. And it's obviously commercial.

SiO2 says

For years GOPers have interpreted this to mean that the DEA can go after people growing their own marijuana for use in their own state

To their credit, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas didn't join the majority on that one. Probably the only Thomas decision I agree with.

Healthcare is far more relevant to interstate commerce since there’s usually interstate companies involved

I think interstate commerce can be generalized a bit. The interstate highway system's costs are 99.999% intrastate, yet the system as a whole benefits interstate commerce. A federal insurance system would work similarly, to increase labor mobility and level the playing field among rich and poor states.

twelc says

This process was sidestepped, and that may be one reason people feel uneasy about it.

What do you mean sidestepped? The original proposal was originally supposed to pass before the summer recess.

Last I checked the House and Senate are charged with representing the will of the people. The House of Representatives -- note the name -- passed a public option plan last year. It's only the undemocratic senate and its superundemocratic requirement for supermajorities that is hindering passing reform.

twelc says

You could also argue the Constitution was intended to create an environment that allows a slower process of enacting laws, thereby giving bills time to be reviewed/debated, and responded to in a manner that reflected the preference of the “people”, not the will of the few holding power over the country.
This process was sidestepped, and that may be one reason people feel uneasy about it.

These were the arguments of the founders, and many quotes from them can be found to show they intended the process to be slow and diffcult. A major reason they gave us a bicameral legislature, for example, was because of concern that a single body would act too impetuously.

twelc says

Some people have pointed out that Obama campaigned on transparency in the White House, like debating Health Care on C-Span, but clearly that’s not what transpired.

That's rightwing bull. Obama's election promise was that he wasn't going to drop a bill onto the Congress without their input (the mistake the Clinton team made). Obama doesn't have the power to compel the Senate to televise their negotiations. Do you guys even understand the separation of powers?

twelc says

There were closed door meetings that were not bipartisan, and deals designed to get votes that still remain in the healthcare package even to this day.

Welcome to the sausage factory. Democracy does not require bipartisanship when the minority is completely and totally wrong about everything.

"Pushed so hard..." and "not enough time for debate" on an issue which has been polarized by party for over a decade?

Everyone has pretty much picked their team on this issue already and more time and debate won't change anything. More "debate" is just about tying it up in knots hoping it'll go away. The Republicans hope they can kick the can down far enough that they can make it an issue in the next election. They are terrified that if it passes and DOES NOT result in Communism and people standing in bread lines, that they will have a deuce of a time ripping it out later. Passage would over time erode the base of the No Party.

Troy says

Do you guys even understand the separation of powers?

Judging by Obama's lecturing the Supreme Court members at his State of the Union, he either doesn't understand the separation of powers or chooses to ignore it.

twelc says

agree with Eliza, that we need *something*, but it needs to be reviewed/debated, and responded to in a manner that reflected the preference of the “people”, not “fast-tracked”.

Not according to Nancy Pelosi. We need it quick like and she'll tell us what's in the bill after they pass it. LOL

RayAmerica says

Judging by Obama’s lecturing the Supreme Court members at his State of the Union, he either doesn’t understand the separation of powers or chooses to ignore it.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections . . ."

Do you guys have a functioning brain?

RayAmerica says

Uhhhh, the question here is not what the “government requires” but, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product, in this case health insurance. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

uhhh, this was a clause slipped in by the wonderful heathcare industry lobbyists during the planning process... I really wish you turkeys were as intent on limiting corporate powers as you seemingly are on killing the Democratic gov...

Anyway, is it "Constitutional"? Before you ask a sweeping question like that I'm sure you've done a lot of reading and research as to what actually is defined by the Constitution and have a fairly balanced understanding of what areas it covers and doesn't, right? I suppose you've also contacted a constitutional lawyer for a general opinion or extensively read online blogger/lawyers such as Glenn Greenwald who regularly write about such topics?... Certainly that would be a good starting point so that you don't ask questions that make yourself sound like a dolt, right? So what do they say on the subject?

Also, the Bush/Cheney Gov were planning on pushing through forced retirement saving accounts to replace the Social Security system, where all private earnings that currently go into the SS system would be channeled into the private coffers of investment houses. I bet you were up in arms over that one, right?

RayAmerica says

twelc says

agree with Eliza, that we need *something*, but it needs to be reviewed/debated, and responded to in a manner that reflected the preference of the “people”, not “fast-tracked”.

Not according to Nancy Pelosi. We need it quick like and she’ll tell us what’s in the bill after they pass it. LOL

Huh. Huh. Good one Beavis.

You seriously think that's what she's saying? That nobody understands the bill, but we should pass it anyway?

The main points of what's in the bill are already very well understood by anybody that cares to take the time to read up on it. This had been debated for many months. The current bill that is likely to be voted on is very similar to the Senate version that was passed in December, as has been widely reported.

It's been over two months for #$@*'s sake!!! Why are you pretending that nobody knows what's in the bill?

If you don't like the bill, fine, that's your prerogative, but pretending that Pelosi or anybody else is trying to pass some mystery bill sinks to Beavis and Butthead level of debate. It's your own fault if you supposedly care about this issue but have bothered to acquaint yourself with the proposal.

"uhhh, this was a clause slipped in by the wonderful heathcare industry lobbyists during the planning process… I really wish you turkeys were as intent on limiting corporate powers as you seemingly are on killing the Democratic gov…"

LOL, it must have been the Republicans who allowed this to be inserted in the Democrats' bill, right? Probably right there with making the construction industry the only industry where instead of a 50 employee threshold, it is 5 (as a payment to the trade unions for their support).

kentm says

Also, the Bush/Cheney Gov were planning on pushing through forced retirement saving accounts to replace the Social Security system, where all private earnings that currently go into the SS system would be channeled into the private coffers of investment houses. I bet you were up in arms over that one, right?

If you are going to make a point, at least be honest about it. The plan Bush was pushing was a VOLUNTARY option to allow individuals to invest a portion of their SS retirement set aside in the stock market if they chose to do so. I thought it wasn't a good idea either, but if you are going to make an argument, at least state correctly what the plan was.

kentm says

RayAmerica says
Uhhhh, the question here is not what the “government requires” but, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product, in this case health insurance. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

kentm says

uhhh, this was a clause slipped in by the wonderful heathcare industry lobbyists during the planning process… I really wish you turkeys were as intent on limiting corporate powers as you seemingly are on killing the Democratic gov…

How exactly was this "slipped in?" You can't be implying that the evil, nasty lobbyists just "slipped" it past the Democrats ... you know ... the pure as the driven snow, watchdog, anti-lobbyist ones that had control of the bill Democrats? You can't be saying that ... or are you? LOL

Troy says

Do you guys have a functioning brain?

Too bad you go through life with a deeply furrowed brow and no sense of humor. With so much to laugh at, why take yourself so seriously?

MarkInSF says

If you don’t like the bill, fine, that’s your prerogative, but pretending that Pelosi or anybody else is trying to pass some mystery bill sinks to Beavis and Butthead level of debate. It’s your own fault if you supposedly care about this issue but have bothered to acquaint yourself with the proposal.

Have you read the bill?

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

If you don’t like the bill, fine, that’s your prerogative, but pretending that Pelosi or anybody else is trying to pass some mystery bill sinks to Beavis and Butthead level of debate. It’s your own fault if you supposedly care about this issue but have bothered to acquaint yourself with the proposal.

Have you read the bill?

No. But I have read the summaries by people that HAVE read the bill, and even had input into the language. That's all that matters.

Just like when the US retirement system was being overhauled very few people actually read the bill, but knew the key ideas like the introduction of 401Ks, and that's all that mattered.

You are setting an absurdly high bar for being able to understand a bill. What's important is the principals. Knowing every nitty gritty detail is pointless unless you're in the insurance or health industry and have to live by the new rules.

There are many, many, many eyes on this. That's why you get people raising red flags for things like exemptions for union members in having tax-exempt status for "cadillac" plans taken away. Of course there is some sausage making going on, but that's just the reality of congress.

Have *YOU* bothered to learn about the bill? I find that the most strenuous opponents barely know a thing about it. Just these two pages go a long way:

this is a good place to start

and this article has good info on health exchanges.