Does anyone know about this?

FREEDOM!

Blacksmith8 on October 26, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Agreed..but I fear that if a turn around can not be accomplished in 2010/2012, there will be so many people on various levels of assistance out of necessity, that trying to reverse things will be out of the question. At that point, exposing how we got there or who and what is to blame will simply not be relevant. Once you’re in the water trying to survive because theres a hole in your boat, you don’t really care how the hole got there..you’ll take whatever will help keep you afloat…and most likely be grateful for it and want to keep it around.
Then you get comfortable with it and expecting of it.

Health Care provides for the “ general welfare of the Unites States.” So I guess y’all can zip it now.
Constant Parrhesia on October 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Ed, you fergot to spray for trolls.

Now that H1N1 has been declared a “national emergency,” maybe vaccines will be mandated, with other healthcare mandates to follow.

The Ronin Edge on October 25, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Thats what I was thinking.

They are going to pass this in one form or another.
Is our only hope in it not taking effect until 2013 and beyond so it can be repealed?

Itchee Dryback on October 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM

The primary defense HAS to be taking back the house and the senate for 2010. IF we can’t override/undo/block/tank/pigeonhole the many and various crapsandwiches this congress has rammed down, then we fight on for 2012. If we can’t undo and roll back then, we fight for 2014.
 
Can you see the trend? The point is not whether we take the country back, the point is when. When we take it back, are we going to ever let these moron/liberal/maoist/socialist/nazis get a word in edgewise?
 
FREEDOM!

Health Care provides for the “ general welfare of the Unites States.” So I guess y’all can zip it now.

Constant Parrhesia on October 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights before ratification in order to clear up confusion regarding the “Welfare Clause”. Writings from the period support the intent of the founders in this matter.

So… I guess you can zip it now. :D

Seriously, this matter was settled over two hundred years ago, and it’s only the ignorant or the greedy who look to the welfare clause in an attempt to authorize their theft.

The Ronin Edge on October 25, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Thats what I was thinking.

They are going to pass this in one form or another.
Is our only hope in it not taking effect until 2013 and beyond so it can be repealed?

Health Care provides for the “ general welfare of the Unites States.” So I guess y’all can zip it now.

Constant Parrhesia on October 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM

So does food, a house, and some “walkin’ around” money.
Whats your point supposed to be?

Beagle, what they said was a 5% rate was “perusuasion, not coersion”. It wasn’t a 95% tax rate.

So, since it appears tha the taxation and spend power are not limited, the best you can hope for is a US Supreme Court decision that says that the mandate is not Consitutional, but the exise tax is consititional.

So, what sort of victory is it when you can be forced to pay the tax, but not have the benefit of the coverage?

Jimbo3 on October 25, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Even if its viewed as a tax..whats being taxed??
The mandatory SS/Medicare/Medicaid angle of taxes doesn’t really seem to apply. You are working for dollars which are taxed. The healthcare “tax” is levied for simply being alive. Where is the precedent for that?

So, since it appears tha the taxation and spend power are not limited, the best you can hope for is a US Supreme Court decision that says that the mandate is not Consitutional, but the exise tax is consititional.

So, what sort of victory is it when you can be forced to pay the tax, but not have the benefit of the coverage?

Health Care provides for the “ general welfare of the Unites States.” So I guess y’all can zip it now.

Constant Parrhesia on October 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Except what they are proposing is not just a tax, but forcing you to buy somthing…

They can TAX for the General welfare… they can spend for the General Welfare, but forcing you to BUY somthing for the General Welfare is not in their power.

Jimbo3 on October 25, 2009 at 12:47 PM

The USSC says taxes should be for the purpose of raising revenue, not punitive, and not confiscatory. But they’ve also said it’s possible a 90% tax rate isn’t too much. So forget everything I just said but the last sentence.

And that case clearly shows you the death of reserve police power under the Tenth Amendment. I see no reason why the feds can’t scrap all state criminal law.

James Madison, quoted supra, was right on the money:

“…in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

Murf76 on October 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Jimbo3 on October 25, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Nice work;
PLEASE BE ADVISED:
YOU HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A SUBJECT WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE “GENERAL WELFARE STATUTE” AND SHALL BE VISITED BY THE FBI FOR FURTHER COMMENTS; THE IRS MAY TAKE FURTHER RECOURSE.
signed, Nancy Pelosi.
P.S. SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) argued that underage drinking was the basis for withholding federal funds. So, with this argument, the Federal Government could withhold federal funds from the states for not living healthy lifestyles? Where are there any reliable, substantiated revenue figures which point out what the
cost is directly to the federal government for citizens (please note “citizens”) whom do not maintain their own health care coverage? And as an extra treat, please indicate what the direct cost is to the federal government for people whom do not live the required “healthy lifestyle”.
The crux of this power grab by Congress is that their assumed authority has outstepped the Constitutional constraints already, and this infringes unduly on the states rights.

SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner South Dakota permits persons 19 years of age or older to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol. In 1984 Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. 158, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds otherwise allocable from States “in which the purchase or public possession . . . of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.” The State sued in United States District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that 158 violates the constitutional limitations on congressional exercise of the spending power and violates the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court rejected the State’s claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

In this Court, the parties direct most of their efforts to defining the proper scope of the Twenty-first Amendment. Relying on our statement in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.(1980), that the “Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system,” South Dakota asserts that the setting of minimum drinking ages is clearly within the “core powers” reserved to the States under 2 of the Amendment….Despite the extended treatment of the question by the parties, however, we need not decide in this case whether that Amendment would prohibit an attempt by Congress to legislate directly a national minimum drinking age. Here, Congress has acted indirectly under its spending power to encourage uniformity in the States’ drinking ages. As we explain below, we find this legislative effort within constitutional bounds even if Congress may not regulate drinking ages directly.

The Constitution empowers Congress 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.” Art. I, 8, cl. 1. Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power “to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives.” The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936), where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined that “the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.” Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I’s “enumerated legislative fields,” may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.

The spending power is of course not unlimited, but is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of “the general welfare.” Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States’ receipt of federal funds, it “must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.” Third, our cases have suggested that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Finally, we have noted that other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.

South Dakota does not seriously claim that 158 is inconsistent with any of the first three restrictions mentioned above. We can readily conclude that the provision is designed to serve the general welfare, especially in light of the fact that “the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress . . . .” Congress found that the differing drinking ages in the States created particular incentives for young persons to combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive, and that this interstate problem required a national solution. The means it chose to address this dangerous situation were reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare. The conditions upon which States receive the funds, moreover, could not be more clearly stated by Congress. And the State itself, rather than challenging the germaneness of the condition to federal purposes, admits that it “has never contended that the congressional action was . . . unrelated to a national concern in the absence of the Twenty-first Amendment.” Indeed, the condition imposed by Congress is directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended – safe interstate travel. This goal of the interstate highway system had been frustrated by varying drinking ages among the States. A Presidential commission appointed to study alcohol-related accidents and fatalities on the Nation’s highways concluded that the lack of uniformity in the States’ drinking ages created “an incentive to drink and drive” because “young persons commut[e] to border States where the drinking age is lower.” By enacting 158, Congress conditioned the receipt of federal funds in a way reasonably calculated to address this particular impediment to a purpose for which the funds are expended….

These cases establish that the “independent constitutional bar” limitation on the spending power is not, as petitioner suggests, a prohibition on the indirect achievement of objectives which Congress is not empowered to achieve directly. Instead, we think that the language in our earlier opinions stands for the unexceptionable proposition that the power may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional. Thus, for example, a grant of federal funds conditioned on invidiously discriminatory state action or the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment would be an illegitimate exercise of the Congress’ broad spending power. But no such claim can be or is made here. Were South Dakota to succumb to the blandishments offered by Congress and raise its drinking age to 21, the State’s action in so doing would not violate the constitutional rights of anyone.

Our decisions have recognized that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which “pressure turns into compulsion.” Here, however, Congress has directed only that a State desiring to establish a minimum drinking age lower than 21 lose a relatively small percentage of certain federal highway funds. Petitioner contends that the coercive nature of this program is evident from the degree of success it has achieved. We cannot conclude, however, that a conditional grant of federal money of this sort is unconstitutional simply by reason of its success in achieving the congressional objective.

When we consider, for a moment, that all South Dakota would lose if she adheres to her chosen course as to a suitable minimum drinking age is 5% of the funds otherwise obtainable under specified highway grant programs, the argument as to coercion is shown to be more rhetoric than fact.

Here Congress has offered relatively mild encouragement to the States to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose. But the enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the States not merely in theory but in fact. Even if Congress might lack the power to impose a national minimum drinking age directly, we conclude that encouragement to state action found in 158 is a valid use of the spending power. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

—James Madison

I’m not sure whether there is some exception that one could get from the state if you promised to show up with a trailer and never drive the car on the road, but rather clearly, the general practice is that they won’t let you take possession of the car – OWN the car – without insurance.

–There is no stated exception in Texas if you weren’t going to drive on public roads, although my understanding from another commenter here is that police won’t enforce some laws if you are on private property. Some states have exceptions written into their laws and others don’t. It’s not true in all cases that you don’t have to register your car if you’re only going to drive on private property.

……….there is mandatory employer-provided health insurance for all employees in Hawaii, and an employer has to continue providing the insurance…even if the employee has been terminated…until another employer hires him (kind of a Super-COBRA, worse-than-a-bad-marriage-with-no-divorce-allowed kind of thing)………..
landlines on October 25, 2009 at 2:31 AM

This is a perfect example of why this Democrat Congress cannot mandate all states to force healthcare; These islands, as other U.S. Possessions (Marianas, etc.), have indigenous peoples that maintain their tribal lifestyles to date. They now have federally mandated assistance for their entire lives. Born into these tribes, an individual has very few options.
What Congress and this administration is trying to force upon the continental U.S. is pretty much the same program these people are “entitled” with. Yet, Congress wants to make it a federal offense for non-compliance; Which means each state has no option but to comply; UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Ed has basically stated it in terms that align with my own. Not to be confused with copying his beliefs, the Constitution is quite specific in what congress is charged with.

It is required to maintain a military to protect its citizens from invasion. It is also required to promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare. While Congresses of the past focused on the word ‘welfare’. Using the term ‘welfare’ allows liberal social policy to institute programs such as Medicare, Social Security, focusing on taking care of the elderly, and food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. for the younger generation.

While one set of programs focus on the elderly and expected to have a limited period that benefits will be paid out. The other have the same goals, but their pay out period is infinite.

I offer that the socialist have changed the key word in the constitution that alters what our government offers. The word that should remain the focus of our welfare is the governments requirement to “PROMOTE” vice “PROVIDE” the welfare.

Promoting the welfare is to create an environment that allows every citizen to create their own level of welfare, through their own sweat and effort. If I am fortunate enough to have some level of excess, I am able to share my wealth as I see fit not as the government mandates.

Providing the welfare creates a citizenry that is incapable of protecting itself, so that the requirement to defend U.S. becomes a burden on the bank used to keep handing out a persons way of life that the ability to defend ourselves from being taken over by another country seeking labor and mineral wealth to add to their own degraded infrastructure

We must demand that the government change their mindset from providing (giving) to promoting (back off and cheer U.S. forward).