Schakowsky explains Constitutional basis of ObamaCare
posted at 4:05 pm on October 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
At least Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) gives it a few tries. First she argued “If we can build national highways,” but Adam Sharp noted that the Constitution does include the authority to build interstate “post roads.” Next, Schakowsky says enacting civil-rights legislation creates some sort of odd precedent, even though those acts existed to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Schakowsky gives it one last try on Medicare and Social Security, even though the former is voluntary and the latter is an explicit government program (albeit also of dubious Constitutional authority). There exists no Constitutional reference to force Americans to buy a private product, and Schakowsky winds up walking away:
Founding Bloggers reported from the debate between Schakowsky and her Republican challenger, Joel Pollak. They promise a longer report for Andrew Brreitbart’s Big Government, so stay tuned.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
LOL.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Don’t dodge. Is a fine against those who don’t have insurance a good thing or a bad thing?
Don’t pretend it’s not in there?
Discuss.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Sorry, you’re wrong, read closer:
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section
Timely pay isn’t the same as not pay at all, and the devil is in the details now isn’t it?
Bishop on October 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM
And this is the post-FDR socialist logic that the SCOTUS will apply, upholding Obamacare. There is not a chance in Hades that the Supremes will deep six this monster. They know the general population will learn to love it so unless Congress grows a pair unexpectedly, it ain’t going to get overturned or repealed.
FalseProfit on October 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM
So you really believe that after all the hand-wringing about the individual mandate there will be zero consequences for not getting health insurance/not paying the fine?
So the individual mandate is really just the government saying “Hey, we’d really appreciate it if you got health insurance, but if you don’t, no biggie. We’ll levy a nominal fine against you but we’ll never actually enforce it, so you can refuse to pay it! But, you know, get health insurance, cuz it’s patriotic.”
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM
No fines! IRS won’t care! – crr6
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM
I think what crr6 is saying is the federal government ultimately has limitless power over the people of the United States and will, in time, justify every expansion of power with mind numbing rationale until it has all the power … and that it’s quite happy with that outcome.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM
The things authoritarians must force themselves to believe is simply astounding.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:49 PM
There is so much hash in the law that finding the individual nuggets of importance is difficult.
The HHS is tasked with approving your coverage anyway, if that office determines your chosen plan isn’t acceptable, you will be allowed to keep it anyway? How stupid do liberals have to be to accept that?
Bishop on October 11, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Hey, genius – the IRS Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement testified to the contrary on this very subject, explicitly saying “We have a refund offset mechanism in order to enforce that provision.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186082454662468.html
Midas on October 11, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Learn to love it?
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Yeah, unless Anthony Kennedy gets replaced by a pod person we’re going to lose this at the SCOTUS level.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Yep, this is just yet another instance where crr6 is demonstrating abject cluelessness with regard to comments he/she is pulling out of his/her a$$.
Midas on October 11, 2010 at 5:51 PM
To get out of paying the fine, don’t we just write ‘muslim’ on a line on an IRS form?
slickwillie2001 on October 11, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Authoritarians must lie, because they can’t deal with people knowing what they really believe.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Wait a minute, do you mean we have not been getting answers from an ObamaCare expert…?
d1carter on October 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM
…what? If you don’t pay at all then yes, that’s necessarily a failure to timely pay. Look at the mental gymnastics you and lorien go through to feel that sweet sweet oppression.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Also, is it really constitutional to fine some people and not others, simply because they are getting a tax refund? That’s like deciding to give someone speeding ticket or not based upon the amount of cash in their wallet.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Psh, like some prole IRS Commissioner could possibly know more than crr6. S/he goes to a T14!
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Says the college student who hasn’t experienced “real life” yet, except thru reading a law book or two.
Ever had the IRS come after you? By law they cannot make exceptions for “a few people like you”, and they always will “really care” about those “few people”.
Believe me, the IRS does care about fines and penalties and the like. And yes, they can be quite fascist when they want to.
Del Dolemonte on October 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM
It must be a pretty bad law if muslims want out on a “religious” basis. As far as I know they don’t opt out elsewhere. The UK’s muslims don’t opt out, neither do the ones in France or Germany.
Sounds pretty bad.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Wrong answer grasshopper…
The IRS does not have to give you a refund…they seize property all the time without due process.
With the IRS you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.
Just because you think they owe you a refund, and even they can say they owe you a refund, but someone else in the IRS can arbitrarily say “No”, and you not only won’t get your refund, but you have to spend money to prove if you deserve it.
And of course if you owe money, they will charge you interest, but they don’t pay interest.
You are so naive as to what the IRS has the power to do, what they have done, and what the administration will use them for.
Clinton used it as an art form, and Obama is already attacking the Chamber of Commerce, threatening them.
Just ask Billy Dale how the Clinton’s and the IRS treated him…a perfect example of abuse of IRS power.
right2bright on October 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Is it better or worse that, in your brain, there are no penalties for not having insurance? It’s really a rather simple question. 1 word required.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM
“Amish” works too.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM
2nd year! Knows more than the IRS commissioner.
Well..this is highly probable, actually. LOL
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Obama care will be ruled Constitunal because it is a TAX. Congress has the right to tax. This is the argument that was used for Social Security and will be used for ObamaCare.
Octavia on October 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Ah yes, lorien’s last Hail-Mary attempt at feeling oppressed!
It’s not clear they can even do that under the law, I’m not sure which article you’re linking to but the one I read said so.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM
It’s difficult explaining reality to someone who’s being heavily propagandized and involved at any sort of education establishment where the peer pressure to conform to leftist thought is enormous.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM
I’m sorry for your tax problems.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Crr you are truly naive.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM
I’m sorry for your tax problems.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM
You’re an asssshole of the highest degree.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Well, if they want to say that then they have to somehow make all the statements disappear where they said it wasn’t a tax.
Secondly, not all taxes are legitimate.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:00 PM
You should probably e-mail Douglas Shulman and tell him he’s wrong, otherwise he might make a terrible mistake.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:00 PM
There it is then! The one article crr6 read says it’s impossible. The Obamacare’s funding is based upon the penalties being paid. So we have a little catch-22, don’t we?
Kinda sucks that Obama is up there in court, defending the mandate as a tax (the penalty fine); yet they can’t get the money cuz, in your brain, current law doesn’t allow it.
Captain Kirk wants to discuss this logical flaw with you.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Sorry guys, but would one of you mind explaining why youre forcefully arguing that the law will force you to pay the fine? Shouldn’t you be trying to find every possible reason why it can’t force you to pay? Or is it that you just like being drama-queens, and the prospect of the law lacking an enforcement mechanism robs you of your ability to whine incessantly about being oppressed?
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM
You must have confused “Del Dolemonte” with “Timothy Geithner.”
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM
She has no idea of the auditing process…I have, three times.
Two were so-so (I never paid a dime for any of the three).
One of the three, it was a battle to the death between the IRS agent assigned to me, and myself and attorney.
I had every piece of information required, except she decided that she was the sole interpreter of the law. She made an arbitrary decision and stated “Go to court and prove me wrong”…knowing that would cost me at least $10,000. Seeing as they appeal everything, so it would be in any case a double trial.
Disgusting little wimp…they didn’t win, it didn’t cost me hardly a dime, and she was commended for doing a “fine job”.
A false accusation, designed to blackmail money out of me, proven to be false…and she received a commendation.
That is what kind of “business” the IRS is…
right2bright on October 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Boy what a dishonest argument. How OLD are you?
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Because it’s the truth?
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Crr is one naive little bit*h who thinks the heavy hand of the state is a joke . What an idiot.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Is the lack of enforcement a positive or a negative?
I mean, I keep asking. A simple question, you’d think.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Why would he say he can’t/won’t enforce it, if collecting the fine depends on people paying their taxes despite an enforcement mechanism? Do you see why someone in his position would avoid saying “Woops! We can’t do anything about you not paying! But please do anyway!”
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Because under a democrat administration, there is no way to get out of being forced to pay.
Like I stated, Clinton’s brought it to a whole new art form.
So here is the solution…vote out every democrat and we have a chance to start changing the IRS.
right2bright on October 11, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Ha-Ha, now what is you answer?
Chip on October 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM
You are babbling like an idiot
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Obamacare uses the fines as part of the funding. Why do you think they say if the mandate goes, obamacare dies?
You’re obliviousness is simply staggering.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM
No, because you desperately want it to be true. I can’t decide if that’s unbelievably hilarious or unbelievably sad.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Jesus Christ, I’ve said it at least 3 times now. MOST PEOPLE WILL PAY WITHOUT AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM
What agency in this country has more personal financial information about its citizens than the IRS? Why was the IRS named as the collection/enforcement agency? So, not even the “experts” know?
d1carter on October 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM
So the lack of enforcement is a positive, in your eyes, yes?
If you thought the mandate were enforceable, it’d be an entirely different matter?
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Yes, pay the fines. But there is no fine to pay. Or so I’ve heard from someone.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM
No, I’m sure most of us would love to live in your fantasy world where the IRS doesn’t care about non-payment of fines, but we don’t have that luxury.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:11 PM
You don’t think any of this is oppressive?
Seriously, just what is oppressive to you? I can’t even walk down to the ocean anymore and just throw out my pole. I now have to pay a fee to NOAA, and receive a card ready to display to any dork that comes along and asks for it or else I’ll be fined.
Just when does this all end? Bans on salt, soda, McDonalds toys. This is just the beginning and if you think I’m being hysterical then you are simply uneducated and uninformed.
You may be good at researching past decisions but your knowledge of history is abhorrent. I just want to know one thing. Do you really think the founders would write a document that gives the federal government the power to become what they fought to rid themselves of? Do you really think they envisioned this?
Be honest.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM
What are they paying for? What is the fine going to?
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM
Not if they honestly think there’s no consequence whatsoever for non-payment.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Why did they hire 4000 new IRS folks?
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Why wouldn’t he? In your world where most people will pay without an enforcement mechanism, what’s the harm in Shulman saying “Well, if you don’t pay, we can’t do crap, but hey! You should pay anyway, because it’s the right thing to do.”
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM
I mean, I keep asking. A simple question, you’d think.
Still waiting on this…I mean it should be easy to answer…
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM
To put a smiley face or a frowny face on your IRS forms!
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Just look what we have to look forward to – it used to be that going to the Doctor, the DMV and getting a Tax audit were separate, arduous tasks.
Now thanks to the wonders of Obamacare and courtesy of the far-left oppressives in the Democratic party, they will all be combined!
Whoopee!
Chip on October 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM
…what? It says “failure to timely pay” not “failure to pay at all”.
But feel free to extrapolate on what exactly the IRS or any other enforcement branch of the federal government will do with that fine little piece of verbiage. See you in court, counselor. ROFL
Bishop on October 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM
A few people? A few people?
We’ll see those “few people” at the polls on November 2nd, crr6.
Continuing to prostrate yourself for this shabby, horribly-written, junk piece of legislation makes you look silly. You should stop.
Grace_is_sufficient on October 11, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Crr is right, you guys. People love paying fines, so they’ll pay with or without an enforcement mechanism. Hell, sometimes I forge parking tickets just so I can pay more of those sweet, sweet fines and feel righteously oppressed.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:21 PM
crr6 is desperately trying to inform everyone that the IRS, the friggin’ I.R.S, doesn’t have the ability to tinker with your tax dollar requirements. But they do, oh yes, they most certainly do.
Bishop on October 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM
It also thinks government is a benevolent master. It appears to be quite willing to play the role of subserviant serf.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:35 PM
Stupid in, stupid out for her.
The IRS can simply reorder your tax dollar priority and bingo bango, if you fail to pay everything but that amount…here comes trouble. Taxes, liens, penalties of all sorts. crr6 is apparently too delusional to understand.
Bishop on October 11, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Judging from it’s comments it simply has no idea. There is no one harder to talk to than someone who doesn’t understand evil.
darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM
Because less people would pay. And it’s his job is to ensure that as much is collected as possible. It’s not very complicated. Apparently you agree:
You’re not really this dim, right? Failure to pay at all necessarily means that you didn’t timely pay. The first is subsumed under the second. It is impossible to not pay at all, but still timely pay. Get it?
That’s the bizarre thing about this thread. You guys are arguing vigorously (perhaps, desperately) that you do have to pay, when one would think, if you really did want to avoid governmental intrusion in your life, you would argue that you don’t need to pay. You’re practically pleading with me to say “yes, the government is going to come in full Nazi regalia and take all your property.” It’s fascinating, really.
haha. You appear to feel entitled to an answer, and it’s fun to watch you squirm.
crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Crr you naivety is hilarious. What an idiot.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Crr you are a whack job of the highest order who needs some other interests besides posting here and food.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Whenever I get pulled over by the cops I always tell them I wasn’t really speeding. Those Nazis give me a ticket anyway, though. Fascists!
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:55 PM
So he’s lying in order to con people into thinking that there exists an enforcement mechanism?
This would all be quite fascinating if it wasn’t utter crap.
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM
CRR you nut job look where you have gone. The Government says there will be a penalty and people have for months objected. You then supported it and now you say it does not matter. You are phucking hilarious. What a dupe. Look up Useful Idiot in the dictionary for your biography. Too funny.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM
Crr has mental issues.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 6:58 PM
You don’t have to. You were here cheering when the House version of the bill passed that actually included jail time. So, clearly, you are in favor of jail time for something that no sane person thinks is a crime.
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM
This is actually funny. Because the Arizona immigration law specifically says that racial profiling shall not be used, and crr6 argued that it would necessarily happen anyway. How on earth does that happen?
crr6, this is the difference between theory and real life. A law doesn’t have to say something will happen for it to happen. It’s the nature of unintended ocnsequences. (The more conspiratorial-minded will say that these are actually intended consequences, but let’s work with what we have, shall we?)
When lots of people realize that other people are getting away without either paying for insurance or paying the fine, they will stop paying too. This is actually happening in Massachusetts now. Then there will have to be some legislative teeth for not paying the fine, otherwise a bunch of insurers will go bankrupt. This wil be happening in the near future in Massachusetts. There’s no way to stop it; you can’t just declare the laws of economics to be false.
It is unconstitutional insofar as it commands individuals to purchase a private product. It would be constitutional if the feds just levied a health care tax and used the money to buy health insurance for the nation. They didn’t do that because the political environment wouldn’t allow it. They simply can’t order the citizens to obtain what they refuse to provide directly.
alwaysfiredup on October 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM
Hey, we all understand when someone doesn’t have the conjones or the brains to answer a simple question.
Chip on October 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Mark Levin is discussing this on WABC radio:
http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/citadel/?sid=826&nid=2920
redneck hippie on October 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Haha, oh yeah, I remember that now. Makes all this spinning even more hilarious.
“The Politics of Dreidel.”
Good Solid B-Plus on October 11, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Was it this:
Or something else equally obnoxious?
Chip on October 11, 2010 at 7:14 PM
General Welfare Clause!!!!!111!
And don’t give me that “preamble” crap.
iurockhead on October 11, 2010 at 7:15 PM
LOL. Did it really type that?
lorien1973 on October 11, 2010 at 7:19 PM
You not really this dim, left?
Try this on for size: Let’s say you underpay your tax liability by the exact amount that the feds say you owe for healthcare. “I’m not paying!” you say.
The IRS can reorder your tax dollar priority, so even if you refuse the pay for healthcare coverage or a tax penalty, the healthcare will still get paid for by the reorder. But now, NOW you have failed to pay your other tax obligations and the IRS will do far more than send an admonishing letter.
They get their money and they get to go after you not for refusal to pay for healthcare coverage, but rather for failing to pay your…oh…social security taxes.
Have the lights brightened yet?
Bishop on October 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM
democrats really are unattractive human beings but I guess as ed says,”They are just good Americans who think things should be done a different way.”
Me, I think they are evil.
peacenprosperity on October 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Oh yeah, I saved it and post it now and then just to remember the bygone days Democratic hegemony.
Chip on October 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM
Now that was a simple fix! No charge.
tom on October 11, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Now that was a simple fix! No charge.
tom on October 11, 2010 at 8:06 PM
CRR you and dems are dishonest POSs. Why didn’t you tell everybody at the beginning about the fine being just a threat. You are truly sad and hilarious.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM
She is a statist bit ch. Look at the Alinksy like game she has played throughout this thread.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM
I guess it depends on how much of the economy consists of the clothing industry. Surely if it’s over, say, 5%, then the government can regulate what you’re allowed to wear, and mandate that you buy robin egg blue pantsuits, whether you’re male or female.
And the government can hardly regulate commerce without being able to regulate the people engaging in it, so the commerce clause covers individuals too.
tom on October 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM
Then, they can make us carry papers and lock us up if we don’t? Or make us all wear the same uniform every day? Make us all purchase only the same exact stuff. Each person gets a grocery list of stuff they are allowed to purchase each week – and if they deviate, arrest them, intern them, kill them. After all, the commerce clause allows it.
You people are truly sick. In your mind our only freedom is the freedom to do what the gov’t orders pursuant to teh commerce clause. You honestly don’t believe in freedom or liberty – only the gov’t. What makes you so desperate to be a slave? Why do you fear freedom? Why do you hate democracy? What is wrong with you? Do you honestly believe that subjugating yourself totally to the gov’t will bring you happiness?
Monkeytoe on October 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM
The ironic thing is, if you go to jail health care is free. (It’s the real public option.)
dtestard on October 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM
As a resident of Illinois, all I can say is -
“please accept our apology for sending Jan Schakowsky to Congress (again and again)”. *shrugs*
dissent555 on October 11, 2010 at 9:00 PM
Name a “non-economic activity”. Feeding grass to your horses on your property is, by current ruling, “economic activity affecting interstate pricing of horse feed”.
I think masturbation probably affects the going rate for prostitution… given the latest precedents what other ruling could they make?
If you’re sleeping you’re not going to the movies; and therefore are affecting movie traffic… or whatever. Why wouldn’t negative actions be enforced in that case?
I don’t disagree with your claim; but I think the definition of “non-economic activity” is going to be problematic.
gekkobear on October 11, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Try again. They’re not mine. Study “Estate Law” sometime.
Del Dolemonte on October 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Geeze! Ever wonder how many cults are out there just waiting to suck up the sponges for brains *cough cough* certain people have?
How gullible can it get?
capejasmine on October 11, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Strong military dictatorship?…..sure…..General Welfare Clause.
Re-Education camps for citizens?……sure….General Welfare Clause.
Soylent Green Life Advancement Centers for retirees over age 60?…….sure…..General Welfare Clause.
Banning all political “hate speech” aimed at Congressional members?……..sure…..General Welfare Clause.
Wonder what else it might work for?
PappyD61 on October 11, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Population Reduction Program as part of Cap and Trade?……..sure……General Welfare Clause.
…..and on and on……and on……
PappyD61 on October 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »