Video: Could the feds require Americans to purchase GM cars?

posted at 8:41 pm on March 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

A fun new entry in CNS News’s “let’s ask Congress an uncomfortable question about ObamaCare” series. I’m not losing any sleep over the GM scenario and neither is Burgess (I think), but it’s a tasty hypothetical given the left’s basically correct assertion that Commerce Clause jurisprudence lets them do anything their hearts desire. Any legal eagles care to weigh in? If it’s constitutional to impose an insurance mandate, i.e. “you must purchase a product from this industry,” why would it be unconstitutional to refine that to “you must purchase our product from this industry”? In fact, assuming that the feds gave you a choice between not buying a car at all and having to buy GM if you did choose to buy one, the GM hypothetical would operate more like auto-insurance laws — which are, of course, fully constitutional — than the true mandate that’s found in ObamaCare. There’s no question, either, that the feds can monopolize certain industries, although in the past I believe it’s taken a specific constitutional grant of authority to enable that. What we’re talking about here is a free-floating monopoly power under the Commerce Clause. If the car hypothetical is too goofy for you, instead try, let’s say, education. Anything stopping the feds from saying, “You’re using our product from now on”? My poli sci is rusty, but nothing springs to mind.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That doesn’t seem to square w/Katzenbach v. McClung

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:30 PM

How does Katzenbach apply here?

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 9:50 PM

I’ve been wondering the same thing about this government mandate business. How about Chrysler? Do we still own that too? Get your Hemi’s now before Obama turns them into two-strokes.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 29, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Where does the constitutional violation occur?

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Amendment X?

jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

I can’t tell if you’re being really, really funny or you’re really, really stupid, but either way, I really enjoyed this comment. Thanks.

http://www.hybridcars.com/federal-incentives.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/garden/09greenhome.html

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Thanks for taking the bait, comrade. You’re a predictable little apparatchik.

For the record, are you in favor of the government monitoring our salt/trans-fat intake and giving tax credits for “optimum diets”?

After all, they have every right to subsidize “behavior they like,” don’t they? Of course, like a good little useful idiot, you don’t even try to mask how much you love being told how to live by your government betters by describing this as “correct behavior” or “optimal behavior,” no, simply behavior that “the government likes.”

Of course PR is well aware he’ll be shuttled one the trains one of these days. He’s just content that he’s last in line.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 9:55 PM

That’s where I stopped reading. Whether you like the laws or not, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you think HCR is unconstitutional, you have to use the laws as we understand them today. You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because you don’t like Obama or whatever your problem is.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM

No, sorry chump. We’re in the mess we are because corrupt people have intentionally misinterpreted the meaning and intent of the Constitution. To decide whether something is Constitutional, we should weigh it against the Constitution … not some case law that was decided specifically to expand government power.

You can’t pick and choose when to use the Constitution, and we don’t use laws “as we understand them today” either. The Constitution is clear, and was deliberately written so. If there’s any confusion at all there are reams of works by the men who wrote it explaining everything. Nothing they wrote gives any indication that they intended the government to expand it’s power … in fact they consistently warned that without diligence, it would happen.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Amendment X?

jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History_and_case_law

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM

You can’t pick and choose when to use the Constitution, and we don’t use laws “as we understand them today” either. The Constitution is clear, and was deliberately written so.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Oh, good, so where is the part where it tells us that we’re not a common law country?

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:59 PM

That’s what Obama meant when he said everybody can buy a truck…a Silverado.

betsyz on March 29, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Oh, good, so where is the part where it tells us that we’re not a common law country?

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:59 PM

The parts where is says shall and shall not.

Saltysam on March 29, 2010 at 10:00 PM

You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because you don’t like Obama or whatever your problem is.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Hmmm…if only the Founding Fathers had been smart enough to include a clause about petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. I’m just spit-balling here, but something along those lines would come in really handy.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 29, 2010 at 10:01 PM

No, sorry chump. We’re in the mess we are because corrupt people have intentionally misinterpreted the meaning and intent of the Constitution. To decide whether something is Constitutional, we should weigh it against the Constitution … not some case law that was decided specifically to expand government power.

You can’t pick and choose when to use the Constitution, and we don’t use laws “as we understand them today” either. The Constitution is clear, and was deliberately written so. If there’s any confusion at all there are reams of works by the men who wrote it explaining everything. Nothing they wrote gives any indication that they intended the government to expand it’s power … in fact they consistently warned that without diligence, it would happen.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM

PR also thinks we should have kept Plessy v. Ferguson, of course. How dare those upstart judges overturn 58 years of steady jurisprudence!

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM

The parts where is says shall and shall not.

Saltysam on March 29, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Hmm, I went through and read the Constitution and I didn’t see it. Just pull the exact quote.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM

You folks sound like dangerous militia members.

/

faraway on March 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Why,no dear! I’ a sweet little old lady.

WITH A REALLY BAD ATTITUDE>

katy the mean old lady on March 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM

PR also thinks we should have kept Plessy v. Ferguson, of course. How dare those upstart judges overturn 58 years of steady jurisprudence!

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Ah, lying. I assume the namecalling will be starting soon too.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Start with the first amendment.

Saltysam on March 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Oh, good, so where is the part where it tells us that we’re not a common law country?

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:59 PM

The Constitution is not a “living” or “evolving” document. If you want a law to pass Constitutional muster, then it must be weighed against the Constitution. Get it?

Do you believe the Constitution is unclear? Do you think they enumerated federal powers by mistake? That they really intended for the government to enslave it’s citizens by stealing their property?

If one must interpret the Constitution, then one is looking for a way around it.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

You know what else? I think you deserve a tax credit if you watch MSNBC, listen to NPR and frequently visit DailyKOS.

After all, the government has the right to subsidize “behavior they like.” Just ask internationally renowned constitutional law scholar Proud Rino.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Ah, lying. I assume the namecalling will be starting soon too.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

So which precedents set by the Supremes should be followed, and which should be overturned? Do we flip a coin?

That is to say, were the tide reversed and future iterations of the Supremes walked back the Commerce Clause overreaches of past Courts, struck down the mandate and any similar mandates, you’d be 100% okay with that, correct?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Amendment X?

jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History_and_case_law

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Ok. The Tenth is simply a “truism”. If that’s the case the First is only a truism to be ignored at will. Ditto the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth….. Let’s just scrap the whole thing and crown a king. I suggest Pat Sajak.

jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM

After all, the government has the right to subsidize “behavior they like.” Just ask internationally renowned constitutional law scholar Proud Rino.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:05 PM

That’s funny!

Saltysam on March 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM

I haven’t gone through all the comments, so apologies if this was already covered.

They won’t just flat-out say “You must by a GM.” What they will do, taking sufficient time to do so, is mandate that any vehicle sold must meet X standard such as a particular milage, a certain type of evaporative emission system (you know, that gas cap thing that turns on your ‘Check Engine’ light that I charge you $35 to turn off), or whatever lame metric they wish to assign. And lo and behold, only GM will meet that requirement. And as the competition rushes to comply, GM will be kept one step ahead with ever-evolving mandates.

Nothing blatent, but just the business as usual wink-and-a-nod that has been going on for decades.

JamesLee on March 29, 2010 at 10:08 PM

So the individual mandate is a distraction.

For those who have not been over to Powerline lately

As the linked article makes clear, while the bill does provide for fines to enforce the mandate through the income tax system….the IRS is explicitly prevented from collecting the fines by assessments, liens or seizures, no civil or criminal penalties attach to failure to pay such fines and no interest accrues from the date the fine is due!! This is actually amazing and cries out for explanation.

In my view, this is not the result of a simple oversight or error…quite the contrary. This is a feature, not a bug. We can be sure of this because they had to go to the trouble of specifying that enforcement was prohibited; silence would have meant that the normal IRS enforcement powers were available and presumed to be used to ensure that the mandate legislated by Congress was carried out

The real reason, I suspect, is more insidious — quite simply to destroy the private health insurance industry and create an irresistible demand for expansion of the program to a public option and ultimately to single payer provision.

This is major league stuff. R’s may be right, but are they at a major league level in terms of hardball? Can they really face down the media/Left/Chicago gang??????

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025954.php

r keller on March 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because you don’t like Obama or whatever your problem is.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Yeah! All those Attorneys General of all those states who are filing lawsuits on grounds of unconstitutionality are all a bunch of dummy poopy pants who should listen to Proud Rino!

John the Libertarian on March 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

That’s where I stopped reading. Whether you like the laws or not, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you think HCR is unconstitutional, you have to use the laws as we understand them today. You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because you don’t like Obama or whatever your problem is.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM

and this is where you show you are a fool. I stated a personal opinion, and last I checked those weren’t regulated yet. But frankly, you are wrong. Stare Decisis is powerful, but not immutable. Remember ‘separate but equal’? I’m sure the phrase “Warren Court” means nothing to you then, either.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

For good measure, so I don’t get called a “liar” by PR

Govt is incentivizing behavior they like.

Anything wrong with that? Anything unconstitutional about that? Nope.

That’s a direct quote from PR. Buy a White Sox hat? Tax credit! After all, Obie’s a Pale Hose fan, so clearly, buying White Sox merchandise is behavior that “the government likes.” They should incentivize it!

Buy Obama’s book? Tax credit. Rent “Green Zone” and “Avatar”? Tax credit!

Man, this is fun. I can’t wait until a Republican is back in office and we get tax credits for guns, Bibles, pick-up trucks, NASCAR merchandise, Jeff Foxworthy CDs and beef jerky.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Where does the constitutional violation occur?

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Amendment X?

jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Sooner than that…amendment iv.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

and this is where you show you are a fool. I stated a personal opinion, and last I checked those weren’t regulated yet. But frankly, you are wrong. Stare Decisis is powerful, but not immutable. Remember ’separate but equal’? I’m sure the phrase “Warren Court” means nothing to you then, either.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

According to PR, all Supreme Court precedents are equal. Some precedents are simply more equal than others.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

This is major league stuff. R’s may be right, but are they at a major league level in terms of hardball? Can they really face down the media/Left/Chicago gang??????

r keller on March 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

They can when the majority of the country is behind them.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Man, this is fun. I can’t wait until a Republican is back in office and we get tax credits for guns, Bibles, pick-up trucks, NASCAR merchandise, Jeff Foxworthy CDs and beef jerky.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Good times! Don’t forget tax credits for beer and ammo.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM

…Not only does he have an army of wipers, I am sure he has lickers as well.

Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM

What does the MSM have to do with this discussion?

neuquenguy on March 29, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Good times! Don’t forget tax credits for beer and ammo.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms , and Explosive should be a party supply store, not a government agency.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:14 PM

That’s where I stopped reading. Whether you like the laws or not, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you think HCR is unconstitutional, you have to use the laws as we understand them today. You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because you don’t like Obama or whatever your problem is.

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Here’s my take on HCR.
With SS and Medicare, these programs are only taken out of your paycheck prior to taxes, then after deductions and exemptions and then finally taxes, the rest is yours. your debt to government and society has been paid. SS to be paid when you come of age. Medicare to be paid if you need it and come of age, usually after you are no longer in the work force.
But then there’s Obamacare. It is a program set-up to tell you that you must spend your debt free money for a service, whether you need it or not (or think you need it or not).
Now I am not saying that individuals should not have health coverage, I am saying that if it is to be lumped up with SS and Medicare, this HCR program should be implemented the same so there is no need for 16,500 IRS agents to be hired.
But then again, that would only be accomplished with the single payer government run program (like SS and medicare) and was shot down in congress.

Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

According to PR, all Supreme Court precedents are equal. Some precedents are simply more equal than others.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

especially when that precedent is in the white house.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Oh, good, so where is the part where it tells us that we’re not a common law country?

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Then we’re in agreement that, the oxymoron “gay marriage” is an anarchical standing of common law on its head, right?

Saltysam on March 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Now I am not saying that individuals should not have health coverage, I am saying that if it is to be lumped up with SS and Medicare, this HCR program should be implemented the same so there is no need for 16,500 IRS agents to be hired.
But then again, that would only be accomplished with the single payer government run program (like SS and medicare) and was shot down in congress.

Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM”

You can seek medical services and insurance outside of medicare if you prefer.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:18 PM

As I understand it, car insurance laws are imposed by the states, not the federal goverment. The Commerce Clause is not an issue in those cases. Here it is. Yes, the Commerce Clause has been expanded, but I think that even the Supreme Court may see this as going too far.

immigrantchick on March 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:18 PM

You are correct, but who would do that when they paid into the system for so many years. Get what you paid for. That’s the spirit. And rightfully so. You had no choice in these deductions from your paycheck so this is course.
And with this course is another course..then another. Soon Mankind will not need to decide what to do with their money. Government will accommodate for all their needs [the word "needs" will be defined what big government says it is and who is in charge].

Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 10:25 PM

For good measure, so I don’t get called a “liar” by PR

Govt is incentivizing behavior they like.

Anything wrong with that? Anything unconstitutional about that? Nope.

That’s a direct quote from PR. Buy a White Sox hat? Tax credit! After all, Obie’s a Pale Hose fan, so clearly, buying White Sox merchandise is behavior that “the government likes.” They should incentivize it!

Buy Obama’s book? Tax credit. Rent “Green Zone” and “Avatar”? Tax credit!

Man, this is fun. I can’t wait until a Republican is back in office and we get tax credits for guns, Bibles, pick-up trucks, NASCAR merchandise, Jeff Foxworthy CDs and beef jerky.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:25 PM

For good measure, so I don’t get called a “liar” by PR

Govt is incentivizing behavior they like.

Anything wrong with that? Anything unconstitutional about that? Nope.

That’s a direct quote from PR. Buy a White Sox hat? Tax credit! After all, Obie’s a Pale Hose fan, so clearly, buying White Sox merchandise is behavior that “the government likes.” They should incentivize it!

Buy Obama’s book? Tax credit. Rent “Green Zone” and “Avatar”? Tax credit!

Man, this is fun. I can’t wait until a Republican is back in office and we get tax credits for guns, Bibles, pick-up trucks, NASCAR merchandise, Jeff Foxworthy CDs and beef jerky.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem,

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

As I understand it, car insurance laws are imposed by the states, not the federal goverment. The Commerce Clause is not an issue in those cases. Here it is. Yes, the Commerce Clause has been expanded, but I think that even the Supreme Court may see this as going too far.

immigrantchick on March 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Not quite … you can purchase car insurance from anywhere, not just in your state. It’s health insurance that can only be sold by state licensed companies in any particular state. You must buy only from within your state. There is no interstate commerce.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

d@mn, D@mn, D@mn….and I checked for a double post too….dang server must have hung up

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Quod principiObama placuit legis habet vigorem

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:25 PM

FIFY

neuquenguy on March 29, 2010 at 10:32 PM

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Except that the doctor you go and see may have learned medicine in another state. Or his/her clerical staff may buy their office supplies from a distributor located in another state. So, there’s your interstate commerce. Therefore, since your doctor is probably participating in interstate commerce, you being a patient of that doctor means that you also are participating in interstate commerce.

It’s kinda like they took six degrees of Kevin Bacon and made it into a law.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 29, 2010 at 10:37 PM

OT … looks like Cap and Trade is back in play.

Obama wants this badly and this is the reason why.

The corruption is on a scale I couldn’t even imgaine before.

darwin on March 29, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Left Coast Right Mind on March 29, 2010 at 10:37 PM

except the product you are paying for is NOT medical service.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Under the General Welfare Clause, it seems that they can make us do just about anything.

Can’t wait to see the 2011 Lada.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 29, 2010 at 11:04 PM

You folks sound like dangerous CHRISTIAN militia members.

faraway on March 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM

there. Fixed it.

connectthedots on March 29, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Did somebody say the Feds are subsidizing my new Camaro?

BKeyser on March 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM”

You not get the government stockholder discount? You have to speak to the certified government salesman at each GM dealership for the paperwork.

jack herman on March 29, 2010 at 11:17 PM

I’m curious. Why not get one of the Democrats on tape answering the GM mandate question.

jack herman on March 29, 2010 at 11:19 PM

The government can do whatever they please, irrespective of whether it is constitutional or not, since there is no power on earth more powerful than that of the federal US government. So all this talk is just fodder for fools. Nothing can be done one way or the other. What are you going to do, call on France to help?

We need to be thankful it is nothing more than this. Obama could force you all to eat a salt-free diet and drive hybrids, and there is nothing you could do to about it. Constitutions don’t mean much if the powers that be don’t respect them. Who’s going to police the police?

keep the change on March 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Or to put it in shorter terms… Obama – “I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

steveegg on March 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM

That’s where I stopped reading. Whether you like the laws or not, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

I do play by the same rules as everyone else. Everyone has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. INALIENABLE. It doesn’t matter how many people try to vote those rights away, or if I decide I don’t want those rights and try to sell them for a bit of government cheese, I always, always, always possess them, and so do you.

I will exercise those rights. Pity the fool who tries to stop me.

JSchuler on March 30, 2010 at 12:06 AM

There is fire at the travel agency.

Holger on March 29, 2010 at 9:25 PM

It wounds my heart with a monotonous languor.

keep the change on March 30, 2010 at 12:08 AM

One gets the impression that our founding fathers were overly optimistic about the character of the people who would govern under their constitution.

Daggett on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM

One gets the impression that our founding fathers were overly optimistic about the character of the people who would govern under their constitution.

Daggett on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM

“General welfare clause? Well shut up then, because we know what’s best for you.” — Nancy Pelosi

John the Libertarian on March 30, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Liberals like “Proud Rino” have no interest in or use for the Constitution. Reading PR’s and other liberals’ posts, what’s clear is that although they acknowledge the Constitution exists, to them it’s nothing more than an irritating obstacle to their unbounded statist agenda, a quaint little word game which must be defeated like some end-of-level beastie in order to secure the enslavement of their fellow Americans.

Context means nothing to them. If it did, they would understand the path of history which led to the framing of the Constitution. They would rightly acknowledge that the motive for its creation was the suffering behind centuries of monarchical and statist oppression. They would be honest enough to admit that the Founding Fathers were very much a product of the Enlightenment, itself a revolution in thinking which elevated the individual over the collective and for the first time in history, saw man as an end in himself.

The United States of America is the first country in history to be founded in the image of this philosophy and for this reason it is the most significant nation in the history of the world. The intent of the Founders – and its historical context – is not subjective conjecture, it’s the empirical truth and explained very clearly in their own words. It takes an almost fanatic devotion to the left wing cause to claim, with a straight face, that the Founders actually meant something entirely different, that they would have approved of the spirit and intent of today’s Obama-driven government expansion.

Anyone with a reasonable mind can understand the reasons why federal power should be limited. Liberals like Proud Rino do not have reasonable minds. Furthermore, I honestly do not believe that they have ever stopped to consider themselves as free individuals, as holding an inalienable right to their own lives. Since they don’t see it in themselves, it’s no wonder that they are so free and easy with the liberty of others. When I was a child, the feeling that I owned my own life hit me, on occasion, like a freight train. How could the state dictate the terms of my education? Why was it up to them to dictate the age at which I could legally make love to my girlfriend? Or the terms by which I could do business with my fellow man? I have recollections of thoughts like this since I was around 6 years old. And that was why my heart was never in liberalism, although I went through the predictable motions of leftism in my adolescence.

Proud Rino and others like him see the state as a tool of social engineering. It stems from an almost childish wish to see the world around them molded “just-so.” The idea that everyone has a different outlook, different ambitions and different priorities means nothing to them. The thought of waving a magic wand and having everyone bend to my whim is to me abhorrent. You can bet your big fat behind that it’s not abhorrent to Proud Rino.

I’m a Brit who pays American taxes yet isn’t allowed to vote. But I love this country more than my own and it horrifies me to see what the statist scum and the useful idiots who do their bidding have in store for it. Freedom is the most precious commodity next to life itself and it’s under threat. Ignore Proud Rino, he has no principles.

Sharke on March 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM

Slightly OT: But one thing I’ve wondered about is if GM could have access to any secretive propulsion innovation through their owners, our government.

They should now be allowed access to information from NASA, the Military, or the Patent Office that would allow them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

cntrlfrk on March 30, 2010 at 8:03 AM

“I’m a Brit who pays American taxes yet isn’t allowed to vote. But I love this country more than my own and it horrifies me to see what the statist scum and the useful idiots who do their bidding have in store for it. Freedom is the most precious commodity next to life itself and it’s under threat. Ignore Proud Rino, he has no principles.”

Sharke on March 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM

Sharke has seen firsthand how England was turned into Airstrip One.

Speaking of slavemasters, the paternalistic arguments of today’s democrats are the same as those of the advocates of African slavery, as the following demonstrates. The link to the entire text of the book is at the bottom of the article.
Be prepared to vomit repeatedly:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughcan/summary.html

ebrown2 on March 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM

sorry:

“today’s Democrats”

ebrown2 on March 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Well, as long as we still have choices, say between GM and Chrysler, surely it’s okay.

What, not enough choice? Well, nationalize Ford, and then we can have 3 choices.

/sarc, but I’m afraid it’s going to occur to someone in the govt sooner or later

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 30, 2010 at 10:02 AM

If you think HCR is unconstitutional, you have to use the

laws as we understand them today. You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because ….

Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM

I’m late to the party as usual, but I’d like to point out that if that were true, then the 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision – which ignored 150 years of jurisprudence and history, and did not cite a single precedent for the conclusion – would not have happened.

Godefroi on March 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

did not cite a single precedent for the conclusion

Godefroi on March 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Wrong.

As to the rest of you, I’m not really sure I understand the comparisons to segregation. Are you seriously arguing that our understanding of the commerce clause today is akin to thinking that black people and white people needed to be separated?

On the one hand, you’re talking about the difficulty in interpreting one of the vaguer clauses in the Constitution, the other hand, you’re talking about the subjugation of black people for several decades. These are completely different types of issues.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Speaking of slavemasters, the paternalistic arguments of today’s democrats are the same as those of the advocates of African slavery, as the following demonstrates. The link to the entire text of the book is at the bottom of the article.
Be prepared to vomit repeatedly:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughcan/summary.html

ebrown2 on March 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM

It kind of sounds like you’re equating “Let’s expand medicare” with “Let’s enslave black people.” That can’t possibly be what you mean, maybe you could elaborate?

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM

In the name of Homeland Security, all Americans over the age of 21 must buy a gun and ammunition with the NRA deciding what the Minimum requirement should be.

The IRS shall require us to show proof ever 30 days or we will be fined.

I think I am already covered.

barnone on March 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Sooner than that…amendment iv.

Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

LOL. Terrific. Health Care Reform violates the 4th Amendment. Where did you go to law school, again?

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Slightly OT: But one thing I’ve wondered about is if GM could have access to any secretive propulsion innovation through their owners, our government.

They should now be allowed access to information from NASA, the Military, or the Patent Office that would allow them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

cntrlfrk on March 30, 2010 at 8:03 AM

I saw a Mega Factory show on the Chevy Volt. They mentioned that they would not show certain items about the batteries.

I immediately though “Freedom Of Information Act” request. I own Chevy as do the stockholders of Ford. Unless it is a matter of National Security, the “secret” just became public domain.

barnone on March 30, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Proud Rino, the reason people are referencing segregation is because it is a prime example of overturning years upon years of court decisions. Segregation was the law of the land. It was a fact of life. Heck, so was slavery. So were restrictions on private donations to political campaigns. If we were to simply accept the idea that previous court decisions were the absolute final word, then… well…. Hey! Stare decisis! Whatcha gonna do? Sorry folks, can’t be free. Sorry, you guys can’t vote! Look, I know it’s not fair, but we’ve gone with ‘separate but equal’ for so LONG now… there’s so much case law supporting it….

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Sorry folks, can’t be free.

Overruled by the 13th Amendment, not a court decision.

Sorry, you guys can’t vote!

15th Amendment, not a court decision.

Look, I know it’s not fair, but we’ve gone with ’separate but equal’ for so LONG now… there’s so much case law supporting it….

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Not really “so much case law,” as it was just one case that established SbE, and then several cases thereafter which chipped away at it.

But are you saying there’s no difference between segregation and modern day commerce clause jurisprudence? Are you kidding?

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Actually, a case could be made for the fourth amendment, but it wouldn’t be a terribly strong one. The imposition of jail time for not purchasing the health insurance could be considered a form of seizure. However, that’s really stretching the definition and I doubt it would hold up.

I’d be willing to go for the eighth amendment though… this is definitely both an excessive fine and cruel and unusual punishment for the heinous crime of being a living American, hah!

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Actually, the constitutional violation starts at “We, the people…”

It goes on from there.

Noel on March 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Actually, the constitutional violation starts at “We, the people…”

It goes on from there.

Noel on March 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM

In what sense?

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Actually, a case could be made for the fourth amendment, but it wouldn’t be a terribly strong one. The imposition of jail time for not purchasing the health insurance could be considered a form of seizure. However, that’s really stretching the definition and I doubt it would hold up.

Just find the provision where it says you go to jail if you don’t get health insurance. I’d love to read it. And “the imposition of jail time for not purchasing the health insurance” is not a seizure. Do you know what a seizure is?

I’d be willing to go for the eighth amendment though… this is definitely both an excessive fine and cruel and unusual punishment for the heinous crime of being a living American, hah!

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM

It’s not a fine, it’s a tax.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Ok, let me see if I can explain this. These are what we call “analogies.” That means that they have certain things in common, but are not identical. This allows us to compare different situations and their characteristics without them having to be exactly the same.

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM

It’s not a fine, it’s a tax.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM

No, idiot. Its a FINE. It is penalty for NOT having insurance, therefor not a tax. If you want to have big boy conversations, I suggest you at least look up the words you don’t understand like freedom in the dictionary.

Wolftech on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Ok, let me see if I can explain this. These are what we call “analogies.” That means that they have certain things in common, but are not identical. This allows us to compare different situations and their characteristics without them having to be exactly the same.

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Right, but we agree that they’re different, and wouldn’t we also agree that the things that make those two things different are also the things that make that a false analogy?

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

No, idiot. Its a FINE. It is penalty for NOT having insurance, therefor not a tax. If you want to have big boy conversations, I suggest you at least look up the words you don’t understand like freedom in the dictionary.

Wolftech on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I thought he was referring to the overall increase in taxes, not just the fine for not having insurance. You’re correct that that part is a fine.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Doesn’t the commerce clause presume that an excahnge of commerce exists in the first place?

If I don’t have insurance and don’t want insurance, I’m not engaged in that commerce.

So the commerce clause says not only that existing commerce between insurers and insureds can be regulated…

but also where no commercial relationship exists and none is desired, they can force me anyway?

That’s really bad.

Pitchforks.

ElRonaldo on March 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM

“Just find the provision where it says you go to jail if you don’t get health insurance. I’d love to read it. And “the imposition of jail time for not purchasing the health insurance” is not a seizure. Do you know what a seizure is?”

Yes, Rino. You see, when the police arrest you? That’s a seizure. Also, that wouldn’t be a provision of the new bill. Because they have decided to play semantic word games with the American people, noncompliance with the bill kicks in what they are calling a “tax.” Most people would call this a fine, but that would raise other legal issues that they really don’t want us to raise. Because they are treating this as a tax, noncompliance would be punished under the Internal Revenue Code. If you don’t have acceptable health care, then they will tax you. If you don’t pay that tax, you go to jail. That’s one of the reasons they’re calling it a tax instead of a fine.

“Right, but we agree that they’re different, and wouldn’t we also agree that the things that make those two things different are also the things that make that a false analogy?”

Er… no, not really.

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Congress probably couldn’t do it as blatantly as saying “You must buy GM”, but by analogy to #HCR they could say

You must buy a car that meets one of these criteria: …
x) or any car that has been designated as Compliant by the Secretary of Transportation

Oh, by the way, only GM and Chrysler cars happen to be so designated.

Because the last time I looked, Kathleen Sebelius had the power to wave her magic wand and approve a health care plan, even if its terms are identical to a non-conforming plan.

The Monster on March 30, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Er… no, not really.

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM

OK, great. So on the one hand, we have the Commerce Clause. It’s kind of vague, and what it actually means is not too clear. So what happens is, the Court eventually decides on a definition, and that’s the definition we use for what the commerce clause covers and doesn’t cover. This definition has been shaped for almost 200 years to the understanding we have to day.

On the other hand, we have a single decision which ruled that black people could be prohibited from going to the same restaurants as white people, which wasn’t overruled (but certainly wasn’t explicitly affirmed and probably only existed due to the political realities at the time) until Brown effectively overruled it.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Still waiting on the provision in the bill which mandates jail time for a failure to buy health insurance.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Rino, it wasn’t a “single decision.” With the US supreme court alone, segregation was found not to deny due process of law or otherwise violate the federal constitution in Plessey v. Ferguson, Cumming v. Richmond County BoE, and Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The various state and district courts supported it in several hundred cases. It was almost 60 years between Plessey and Brown. Before that were the various Jim Crow laws throughout the nation. There was a tremendous weight of judicial history behind segregation.

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 1:17 PM

“Still waiting on the provision in the bill which mandates jail time for a failure to buy health insurance.”

See my 12:45 posting, please.

MikeTheLibrarian on March 30, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Still waiting on the provision in the bill which mandates jail time for a failure to buy health insurance.

The provision is that you have to pay a “tax”, but only if you fail to buy qualifying insurance. The jail time is for failing to pay the tax.

Ask Wesley Snipes about that one.

The Monster on March 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Its kind of amusing to read posts and threads asking questions like “Could the feds(Congress)require Americans to Buy GM cars?”.

The absolute undeniable answer to that question is quite easy. It is: “Yes, IF 5 members of the U.S. Supreme Court allow them to.”

The underlying problem is that this nation ceased to be a “Republic” (or any other form of democratic government)in 1803 when the Supreme Court seized absolute power in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

The U.S. is an oligarchy, controlled by the whims of whatever 5 unelected people decide – constrained ONLY by their own consciences and nothing else!!

Are you a “full” person? Only if the Supreme Court says so. May the government take your money/property/labor without compensasion? If the Supreme Court says so. And so on, and so on.

It is an absolute shame that the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and the American People have merely rolled over and allowed the Supreme Court to rule this nation.

The power to “define” what the Constitution says, or does not say,(which the Supreme Court was NEVER GIVEN by that same Constitution, but was seized by the court in the Marbury decision), gives the court absolute power.

The “people” could have (and should have) removed that power from the Supreme Court (by Constitutional Amendment if necessary) immediately after that decision was announced. An alternative, that would have perserved our nation as a democracy, would have been to declare that any “interpretation” of the Constitution had to be agreed upon by a “vote” of the three co-equal branches of government OR was a decision to be made by Congress (the elected representatives of the people)itself.

So, bottom line, these discussions about what Congress can do, or cannot do, what prior Supreme Court decisions provide guidance and which do not etc. are really without any meaning because, tragically, the power of the federal government has become whatever 5 unelected people, serving for life, say it is.

Fatal on March 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

It kind of sounds like you’re equating “Let’s expand medicare” with “Let’s enslave black people.” That can’t possibly be what you mean, maybe you could elaborate?

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010 at 11:08

Both are example of government “incentivizing” economic behavior on patronizing anti-liberty grounds, one is just more direct than the other. Fitzhugh and the slave-holders hated free-market capitalism precisely because it precluded such “incentives” on the grounds of economic & personal liberty via Enlightenment humanism.

BTW, to label what Obama & Co. are doing as “expanding Medicare” just shows what a disingenuous fraud you are.
They are quite honest (when the spotlight isn’t on them directly) about this being a nationalization of health care.

ebrown2 on March 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Ah, this follows what I have been using as an example for ObamaCare. You want to buy a car so you go to GM (government motors) and ask a salesman about a car you see and like. He says he has a deal for you. Your start paying right away and in 4 years the car that management thinks you need will be delivered to you and you get to pay for it for the rest of your like. Such a good deal, right.

A pig in a poke for the make believe government car and real government healthcare. Anyone ever purchase insurance without knowing your benefits beforehand. I thought not, anymore than with a car and having it delivered 4 years after starting to pay for it. Oh, and the salesman and management get the car of their choice when they want it, just like congress and federal workers who are exempt from ObamaCare and get to keep their insurance options. Isn’t life wonderful in DC.

amr on March 30, 2010 at 2:40 PM

I’m totally against the individual mandate, but I’ve been thinking about something, so let me play devil’s advocate.

What if they had framed it as a tax rebate for purchasing insurance, instead of as a fee/tax for not purchasing? Would that change our perspective?

Case in point: last year, the federal government gave me a tax rebate for installing energy efficient windows. That means, effectively, anyone who didn’t install energy efficient windows paid an additional tax for not doing so. Was this just as unconstitutional?

remywokeup on March 30, 2010 at 2:42 PM

What if they had framed it as a tax rebate for purchasing insurance, instead of as a fee/tax for not purchasing? Would that change our perspective?

Case in point: last year, the federal government gave me a tax rebate for installing energy efficient windows. That means, effectively, anyone who didn’t install energy efficient windows paid an additional tax for not doing so. Was this just as unconstitutional?

remywokeup on March 30, 2010 at 2:42 PM

The big difference is the government isn’t taking over the energy efficient window industry to give you a tax credit.

That was McCain’s plan … offer tax credits for health insurance.

darwin on March 30, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Welcome to Starnesville.

gbear on March 30, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Wrong.

Proud Rino on March 30, 2010

Dabmit I hate it when I get my citations wrong.

Point to PR, I was wrong. The case I meant was Engel v Vitale, 1961.

Godefroi on March 30, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2