On KING 5 News tonight, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna pointed out that the obvious fact that the policy of the health insurance bill is irrelevant to whether or not it's legal. He was asked, if the provisions in the bill are thrown out by the courts, won't that gut the bill? But that can't possibly be relevant to the lawsuit, which is just about whether or not those provisions are legal.
Our system, in theory, follows the rule of law, not an ends-justifies-the-means consequentialism that ignores what the law says if the people in charge happen to like the result.
But when his Governor, Christine Gregoire, had her turn to speak, she refused to actually explain why she thought the bill wasn't unconstitutional. She asserted it without explanation, and instead devoted her entire time to explaining why she thinks the bill is a good idea.
The bill could be the best idea in the world, but if it violates the Constitution, it cannot stand as it is. That's how our system works, as a former attorney general should know. And as any lawyer should know, the government has no authority to force people to buy a product just because those people happen to be alive. That not only violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 8, but it subverts the entire nature of limited government established by the people of the United States of America. And worst of all, it denies the self-evident and unalienable human rights noted in the Declaration of Independence.
That Gregoire tries to divert attention away from the obvious constitutional questions involved, and focus instead on the completely irrelevant notion of whether it's a good bill, is prima facie evidence that she doesn't even care whether the bill violates the Constitution.
While I am on the subject, I draw your attention to a letter to the editor I had published in the Seattle P-I way back in 2007, on this very subject:
Hillary Clinton wants to force everyone to pay for health care insurance, especially those who need it the least. The less you use it, the more you help pay for everyone else.
You have a tax on your property, on your sales, on your income, but this is worse. Those other taxes are based on things you do; this is a tax on just existing, on breathing. The government forces you to pay money for that.
Clinton and the Democrats want to tax you for being alive, tax you when you die, and use that money to kill you before you're even born.
Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 23, 2010 10:13 PM | Email ThisGregoire is an sycophant and is almost as much of an anarchist as the current POTUS is. Wish there would be a reason to recall her but nothing yet on the radar screen.
Posted by: KDS on March 23, 2010 10:35 PMWould those be the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Don't you think healthcare promotes life and the pursuit of happiness?
Why does Rob McKenna hate life and happiness?
Posted by: Bruce on March 23, 2010 10:47 PMWhy does Obama hate 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester babies and other American's who prefer to not to have others control their life and death choices?
Posted by: Andy on March 23, 2010 11:03 PMYou're missing some words. You are asking me if GOVERMENT-PROVIDED healthcare promotes THE RIGHTS TO life and the pursuit of happiness.
No. Absolutely, it does not.
And if you have a "right" to X, then most people have no problem with a government policy that ensures you get X, or at least have a realistic shot at getting X. Sure, there might be good or bad policies that could achieve that result, but most people start with the presumption that a policy focused on that goal is a good thing.
Posted by: Bruce on March 23, 2010 11:14 PMIt seemed that was what you are talking about. Did you mean, instead, that government-FORCED health INSURANCE promotes the RIGHTS to life and pursuit of happiness?
Because if so, it's hard to even know where to begin with that completely muddled view.
And if you have a "right" to X, then most people have no problem with a government policy that ensures you get X, or at least have a realistic shot at getting X.
If so, then most people don't understand rights very well.
You have a right to property, for example. That means government secures your RIGHT to own property, but does not actually ENSURE you GET property. That's how rights actually work.
Nope. It depends entirely on the nature of the tax.
If the income tax is valid, so is a tax in another name.
Nope. We passed a constitutional amendment to make the income tax legal. Various types of taxes are explicitly unconstitutional.
Indeed, this particular type of "tax" could be ruled to be a non-apportioned direct tax, which is explicitly unconstitutional under Article I, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
(This is, in fact, one of the claims made in McKenna's lawsuit.)
The conservative/libertarian law professors at Volokh Conspiracy mostly don't like the health care law, but they also mostly think it will survive the constitutional challenge.
If the economy keeps improving, the mid-term elections may not work out as well as you hope either.
Posted by: Wayne on March 23, 2010 11:56 PMWell, I am one of "you folks," having written the piece you are responding to, and in fact, I accurately predicted the court decision in the 2004 governor's race. I said, correctly, that Judge Bridges would find that though there were many problems -- that he would chastise King County for -- he would not find them to be of sufficient quantity or quality to justify overturning an election.
My track record on this stuff is actually pretty good. That said, I am making no prediction here. I am asserting that these things are unconstitutional, and encouraging the challenges, but not predicting any particular outcome at this time.
The conservative/libertarian law professors at Volokh Conspiracy mostly don't like the health care law, but they also mostly think it will survive the constitutional challenge.
Shrug. They've been wrong before. And the analysis there mostly centers around "interstate commerce" and ignores the fact that never before, in U.S. history, has everyone been required to participate in a particular kind of commerce. As one commenter on Volokh notes, you have cited no precedent that permits the government to force individuals to part with their property under the rubric of "regulation."
Further, there's the problem of the penalty being a violation of the direct tax prohibition. It could very well be that the requirement stands, but the penalty doesn't. Won't that be fun?
Finally, of course, there's the fact that this unprecedented act of Congress will be met with very unforgiving eyes by certain members of the Supreme Court, who are going to demand more than just some vague handwaving at "interstate commerce." There's been limits on interstate commerce before, and five of the justices on the Court have expressed skepticism about the far reaches that the clause has been used for.
If the economy keeps improving, the mid-term elections may not work out as well as you hope either.
Yeah, because that worked out so well for the Republicans in 2006 ...
I loved the decision. What's not to like? It removed a blatantly unconstitutional law that said a filmmaker couldn't put out a political movie during a campaign. How ANYONE could support such a law, and have any respect for free speech, is completely beyond my comprehension. I was convinced it would be overturned, and was right.
But I also was convinced the DC gun ban would be overturned, and I was right. And I am convinced the Chicago gun ban will be overturned. And I was convinced our blanket primary would be tossed out. I also was convinced I-872 would be thrown out ... was wrong on that one. But most of the time, I'm right. Shrug.
Again though, not making a prediction here, not yet.
I don't know whether it would be a "capitation or direct tax" under Article I, Section 9. It probably is, since it is not an excise tax imposed for the privilege of doing something. But I think the income tax exception would apply.
The INCOME of the uninsured is taxed. The Senate bill signed into law on Tuesday will impose (as of 2016, when the full tax penalty is effective) a $750 per person tax (up to $2,250 per family), or 2% of income, whichever is greater, on people not having health insurance. However, people with incomes below the poverty level will not be taxed at all, and certain other exemptions from this tax exist.
The poverty level (for 2009, perhaps not changed for 2010 due to lack of "inflation") for a family of three was $18,310. So, if this family lacked insurance, they might pay a tax penalty of $2,250, and possibly some income tax and almost certainly some social security tax.
Obviously, it seems unfair and regressive for a family of three (say a single mom high school dropout working at WalMart with two kids, and no child support from a deadbeat dad) with a $18,310 income to pay a $2,250 tax penalty, when a single person with a $37,500 income (say a 23 year party-kind-of-guy just of college with a BS in accounting) would only pay a $750 tax penalty, and a married couple with no kids (say owners of a small business) with a $110,000 income would only pay a $2,200 tax penalty.
However, the tax penalty is still an INCOME tax. A family has to have income equal to at least the poverty level to pay the tax penalty. The tax penalty is then calculated as either a percentage of income, or a flat rate based on family size, whichever is greater. And it is mathematically impossible for the tax penalty to exceed 100% of income.
Obviously, Pudge thinks the tax penalty is bad policy. Maybe Pudge will criticize the regressive nature of the tax, especially on single parents with kids making just over the poverty line. But it is still an INCOME TAX.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2010 12:33 AMExcept, of course, that it is a tax on being alive, not a tax on making money.
A family has to have income equal to at least the poverty level to pay the tax penalty.
An exemption for low-income families does not magically turn it into a tax on income. It's a tax on being alive. It's taken OUT of your income, to be sure, but it is not a tax ON income.
It's not an income tax. And the text of the bill makes that entirely clear: it is levied not because you made money, but because you did not purchase a product (5000A(b)(1)).
Let's suppose the government increased the income tax rates by 2% for everyone. However, people who chose to purchase certain health insurance, or who chose to work for employers who would provide them certain health insurance, will receive a 2% income tax credit. In addition, if insurance is too expensive for someone, or if a person makes less than a certain income, they will also receive this income tax credit.
I don't see how you could possibly call that unconstitutional. Especially when Republicans have been advocating income tax credits for people who purchase health insurance.
The federal government presently imposes higher taxes on families who choose not to have children. Those people are required to pay $1,000 per year extra taxes, for each child they choose not to have, plus have an additional $3,650 per year of income subjected to the income tax, for each child they choose not to have.
Clearly, a family has the same constitutional right NOT to have children, as they do NOT to purchase health insurance.
So why is it constitutional to offer $1,000 per child tax credits, and $3,650 per child tax exemptions, when families choose to have children, but unconstitutional to charge lower income taxes to families who choose to purchase health insurance?
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2010 01:07 AMWell, first, the latter isn't what the bill did. Second, if it DID do the latter, it would just be a way to get around doing the former.
Republicans have been advocating income tax credits for people who purchase health insurance
Nope. They have advocated income tax credits for everyone, that could be used for purchasing health insurance, but would not require proof of insurance to get the credit (since you might decide to use the credit to purchase CARE, not INSURANCE ... or to save up over time to pay for care later).
Those people are required to pay $1,000 per year extra taxes, for each child they choose not to have
Please, let's not devolve into the stupid.
McCain's plan would cost $3.6 trillion over 10 years, the campaign said."
CNN, April 29, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/mccain.healthcare/index.html
Wow! McCain's "tax credit" of $5,000 per family that purchased health insurance would have been more than twice as much as Obama's "tax penalty" of up to $2,250 (or more) per family that did not purchase health insurance! (And maybe it would have even taken effect immediately while McCain was still in office, instead of waiting until 2014 to start being phased in ...)
So did you vote for McCain, in spite of believing that his so-called "tax credit" (in reality a "tax penalty" against the uninsured) was unconstitutional?
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2010 01:47 AM
if the passed bill has the 'exemption' from judicial review it will fail constitutional muster, so much for your "experts".
it looks really specific
Posted by: Ron K on March 24, 2010 06:16 AMWhat is unfair and regressive is for the government to impose such an individual mandate on anybody, regardless of whether it's family of 3 or a single person. Why, in your opinion, should a 23 year old single guy, unlikely to need healthcare insurance for years to come, be asked to pay more for that insurance than a family of 3 with 2 children (that are likely to actually consume more of the services) simply because he makes more money? He didn't make the poor life decisions. She did.
Not surprisingly, you've got this exactly backwards, Richard.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 24, 2010 06:25 AMFinally. I can't wait to make "them" stop what "they" are doing. My dream come true.
As a matter of fact, "we" can now force behavioural activities through income taxes to make sure that, if someone dare exercise freedom and liberty, at least they will pay into the system for that defiance.
Oh! the joy of such control over those stupid simpletons that don't know how to run their own lives correctly.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 24, 2010 07:24 AMThanks for the link to the Heritage Foundation piece. However, the Heritage article does say that it would be perfectly constitutional to increase income taxes, and then give a tax credit to those people who purchased insurance.
That is basically the same thing as imposing higher income taxes (i.e. the "penalty" in Obamacare) on people who do not purchase insurance.
Of course, the "tax penalty" is rather regressive, starting out at $750 to $2,250 once family income equals the poverty level, staying at the same dollar amount for considerably higher income, and then finally becoming 2% of income when that amount exceeds the initial $750 to $2,250.
But if Congress can enact a progressive income tax, they can just as easily enact a regressive income tax. Or a regressive income tax penalty on people who do not qualify for an exemption from the tax penalty by purchasing insurance.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2010 07:39 AMA few comments:
1. Assuming you could guess this one, but for the record, I disagree with your analysis on the constitutionality. Yesterday, I read a few very detailed analysis on the subject, so this statement of disagreement is not without background. The pertinent court cases to consider are ones made in 1940's (i.e., under FDR). Their precedent still stands and has been used several times in subsequent similar cases.
2. You stated in one of your responses (above) of being pleased with Citizen's United. Do you agree or disagree that this court overturned 100 years of precedent in making this decision. If you disagree, please explain how it didn't, because this is well documented. If it did, then I assume you have no problem in this instance (i.e., Healthcare lawsuit) with the court overturning 70 years of precedent either and that you are for activist judges.
3. You state in one of your responses calling the lawsuit "McKenna's lawsuit." I was under the assumption that McKenna signed onto the Florida AG's lawsuit. Did McKenna file one himself, instead?
4. With regards to overturning the whole bill, the Florida AG's lawsuit calls out a couple areas of the bill where it feels the bill is unconstitutional. One is the mandate section. Another is the increased requirements for Medicare. Yet, the lawsuit then goes onto say that the remedy it seeks is the whole bill, including for example, the preconditions section and the correcting of the Medicare Doughnut Hole, is to be declared unconstitutional and thrown out. This in my mind is a stretch and is overreaching compared to other recent cases, like Citizen's United, which only struck down the pertinent section. Do you agree that everything in the bill is unconstitutional and should be struck down, or should only the sections being argued be struck down (as the remedy)?
OBTW, you are not going to change my mind. I am only asking to get you to state on the record what your opinion is. It is hard to have a discussion when one side (you) won't even state their basis for their conclusions.
Posted by: tc on March 24, 2010 08:02 AMIs it constitutional for the federal government pass a law mandating the purchase of certain products and services in the private market?
Can they pass a similar law mandating everyone buy a gun for protection? Can we pass laws mandating everyone eat oranges as part of a farm subsidy bill?
No- this is not provided for in the constitution.
Posted by: Andy on March 24, 2010 08:19 AMYou say that it would be illegal for the federal government to impose tax penalties on families who choose not to own guns.
Would you support a tax credit for families who choose to own guns? Same difference really.
If you look at Form 1040 and Schedule A, there are tax credits and tax deductions for numerous things. Ranging from having children, having spouses, paying home mortgage and property taxes, making charitable and religious donations, using solar energy, and even -- health insurance for self-employed and health savings accounts for better-off citizens.
Why is it okay to use federal tax policy to encourage all the things that tax credits and tax deductions are presently allowed for, but not to use federal tax policy to encourage everyone to carry insurance (especially when the insurance is heavily subsidized for lower income people)?
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2010 08:27 AMFalse. That's not the general consensus at all.
well take it up with one Jonathan Turley who has devoted his life to the study of Constitutional law
Gladly. Invite him here. Note that this scholar also said John Yoo should be prosecuted for war crimes for **giving an opinion of what the law says,** which is a thoroughly ridiculous legal notion. So it's not likle Turley is always right: in fact, in the Yoo case, he is obviously wrong (and even the Obama administration asserts that Yoo can't be prosecuted for this).
tc: The pertinent court cases to consider are ones made in 1940's (i.e., under FDR). Their precedent still stands and has been used several times in subsequent similar cases.
It depends on what you're referring to. If it's the issue of direct taxation, there are precedents for it both ways. If it's the issue of the mandate, nope. There IS NO PRECEDENT for this unprecedented act. Never before has such an act ever happened: forcing all people to buy a commercial product, to force them to engage in commerce. Pointing to precedents is begging the question.
You stated in one of your responses (above) of being pleased with Citizen's United.
How could ANYONE who respects freedom of speech NOT be pleased with it, if they understand it? (Yes, I am saying Obama, clearly, does not respect freedom of speech, and neither do the four liberals on the Court.)
Do you agree or disagree that this court overturned 100 years of precedent in making this decision.
At this point, I could not care less. When we're talking about fundamental rights such as the right to make a political documentary, how could any precedent matter? There is no right more basic than political speech, and government has no justification for censoring it, and no precedent against such a basic right should be considered valid (just as Plessy v. Ferguson was considered invalid several decades ago).
What's astonishing is how many liberals come down in favor of this censorship, while Hollywood is putting out political movies, and the New York Times is putting out political editorials ... and they have MUCH more money and MUCH more "corporate influence" than this tiny little filmmaker.
Precedent is important, which is why I am swayed by some of the counterarguments in the Chicago gun case against using the "privileges and immunities" clause to incorporate the Second Amendment. If that were the only way to incorporate the Second Amendment, then that would be a strong argument, but reviving that text -- while undoubtedly the right thing to do, according to the clear and obvious text and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution -- could have far-reaching consequences that are arguably outside the boundaries of the Chicago gun case itself.
I have little doubt that if the privileges and immunities clause itself were up for judicial review, I would favor its reinstatement, but I am not in favor of willy-nilly overturning precedent, even clearly wrong precedent. But if it is necessary to overturn precedent to restore a basic right, such as in the Citizens United case, then we have to do it. There's no other rational choice, if you respect the rule of law.
You state in one of your responses calling the lawsuit "McKenna's lawsuit." I was under the assumption that McKenna signed onto the Florida AG's lawsuit. Did McKenna file one himself, instead?
The State of Washington is listed as a plaintiff in the Florida lawsuit, under his name: "STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and through ROBERT M. McKENNA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON." So it his lawsuit, too ... though really, we could say "OUR lawsuit." :-)
the lawsuit then goes onto say that the remedy it seeks is the whole bill
It is common to ask for the stars when you reach for the moon, so to speak. There is a reasonable legal argument to be made here: that is, that the changes requested in the lawsuit would significantly change the nature of the bill, such that it would not do what the people who passed the bill thought it would do (an argument the Democrats themselves make). And you leave that possibility open in the lawsuit, though I don't think most people really expect it at this point.
Do you agree that everything in the bill is unconstitutional and should be struck down
Not everything maybe, but most of it, yes. But that is not the case the lawsuit makes, in my reading of it. But again, let's say that the mandate is removed. Well, according to Democrats, the mandate is required in order to make the no-preexisting-conditions part work. Which is required for the health insurance exchange and minimum standards to work. And so on. So you could make the case that if mandates fall, all of the rest falls, not on constitutional grounds necessarily, but on practical grounds.
Of course, I think the minimum standards and the exchange ARE clear violations of the Tenth Amendment, but just using that as an example.
Can anyone explain how mandating an individual carry insurance has anything to do with regulating interstate commerce?
Posted by: Palouse on March 24, 2010 08:51 AMNo, he does not.
The mandate itself, and the nature of the penalty for that mandate, are different things. You could have NO penalty, and the mandate would STILL be unconstitutional.
The bill says, "An applicable individual shall for each 24 month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month." It's that mandate itself that is unconstitutional, no matter whether there's a penalty attached to it.
Your argument -- that BECAUSE it would be constitutional, in your mind, to structure it different, THEREFORE it is constitutional -- is wrong.
Why is it okay to use federal tax policy to encourage all the things that tax credits and tax deductions are presently allowed for
Straw man. Who is saying those things are OK? No one here, that I've seen. And no, it is not rational to say that because McCain proposed credits, therefore we support them. I supported McCain even though I hated the provision of McCain-Feingold that was struck down in the Citizens United case. I would have preferred another candidate, but McCain was, by far, the best of the available reasonable options.
All true, but we also will be required to subsidize healthcare for those who engage in truly high risk activities such as homosexual sex and intravenous drug use, groups which leftists have historically pandered to. And insurance companies will be forced to issue taxpayer-subsidized polices to those with HIV/AIDS and those who inject illegal drugs.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 24, 2010 09:02 AMIt just goes to show that "progress" is an illusion.
It's not 100% conclusive, but it's not "wrong", either. You yourself admit that there's no precedent for a mandate like this, so there's no perfect historical anlogy. Therefore we look for imperfect anaologies. Since a tax credit and a tax penalty have similar effects, it's reasonable that if one is constitutional, the other probably is, too.
Posted by: Bruce on March 24, 2010 09:49 AMFalse. It's entirely wrong. If it is ruled to be constitutional, it will not be because tax credits are constitutional.
A business-owner friend of mine called Employment Security after he got his 2010 rate notice telling them there must be some mistake. The pinheaded bureaucrat he was directed to told him there is no mistake. That because unemployment is so high, those with no claims must pay much more!
My buddy went absolutely ballistic at this pinheaded. The pinhead had zero sympathy and chastised him for being angry and selfish!!!!!!!
Sound familiar?
My friend finally put a lid on his intense anger and explained to one of GREGOIRE'S CADRE OF PINHEADS that if his rates triple...he would now be forced to lay someone off.
The l'il pinheaded could simply not understand.
Can you imagine OBAM-MAO's CADRE OF LEFTIST PINHEADS who will be employed to tell hard-working folks that they must pay more to support folks who don't work...and in many cases, don't want to work!
WTF!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 24, 2010 10:23 AMIt's reaching a boiling point on the other side, too. Problem is, though, that on OUR side we are angry about our rights and property being TAKEN FROM US. On the other side, they are angry because we are not being forced to GIVE THEM what is OURS.
Not all "righteous anger" is equivalent.
I am no Ayn Rand fan, but Atlas Shrugged is getting closer to reality.
To Pope's point- if the government wanted to give everyone WITH insurance a 10k tax break, great... that is w/in their scope. They can't go the other way and fine me for not having it, just like they can't fine me for not buying a hybrid car.
There are dozens of other issues that are questionable as well in the rest of the law - such as the not denying customers of pre-existing conditions. It is unfortunately w/in the government's power to regulate an industry out of existance in this regard. Horrid policy, but w/in the scope of government.
There may be a legitimate quarrel between whose right supercedes whom: do the states get to dictate or does the federal government get the privelidge of running an industry out of business. I think this was the second heart beat of Roe v Wade (the first being the heart beat of the infant in the womb).
I disagree, but of course, we know that they DO this sort of thing all the time. I see no rational basis for it in the Constitution though. The 16th Amendment was never a grant of power for that sort of thing. It was a tax on income, not a means of social control.
There are dozens of other issues that are questionable as well in the rest of the law - such as the not denying customers of pre-existing conditions. It is unfortunately w/in the government's power to regulate an industry out of existance in this regard. Horrid policy, but w/in the scope of government.
Again, I don't believe so. The power to regulate interstate commerce was never designed to be that pervasive. It's essentially CONTROL of the industry, rather than mere regulation of it. But again, the government "has" this power whether the Constitution actually allows it or not.
Another way of looking at things is that, in this day and age, basic healthcare is a fundamental human right. The healthcare bill Obama signed yesterday is imperfect but is the most practical way to get basic healthcare for nearly all Americans given political realities. Even if the bill is unconstitutional, anything less so clearly shows a complete lack of respect for the dignity of individual human beings, that it's just amazing that we're even talking about it in practical terms.
I know you prefer the first analysis because you view individual liberty as paramount. I strongly disagree. So do a majority of Americans, and an overwhelming majority of people from other developed countries (which I know means nothing to you, but it does to me; they are humans with whom we share many values, including dignity, and they have some experiences with healthcare that we don't).
You make good points about liberty. But your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the other side of the issue is a signifcant character flaw -- in your life a writer at least.
Posted by: Bruce on March 24, 2010 11:30 AMIt's a vicious cycle. Many Democrats don't understand the basic underlying economics, nor the delicate web of libertarian interconnections that makes our society possible. There will be many unintended consequences.
Hope and Change.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 24, 2010 11:30 AMhttp://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf
Posted by: tc on March 24, 2010 11:40 AMhint: remember these things as you lose election after election in Novemnber. We will.
Posted by: John Gualt on March 24, 2010 11:46 AMIt's not about a "discount." It was not a "Republican" plan in the sense that it was backed by a majority of Republicans, which is the implication people are making when they call it a "Republican" plan. Note that I do not go around saying the Blair Holt Firearms Act is a "Democratic" plan. Some people do, but it's dishonest: it is a gun-banning bill that the overwhelming majority of Democrats don't support. Same thing with Chafee's "Republican" health insurance plan.
Shel Belle: yes, Conyers, like many liberals who hate the rule of law and want to make it up as they go along, pretend that the "general welfare" clause of Article I, Section 8, is a grant of blanket power to do whatever the government wants. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and the overwhelming majority of people who voted to ratify the Constitution, who recognized that it installed a LIMITED federal government with FEW AND DEFINED powers, say that's nonsense.
Bruce: Another way of looking at things is that, in this day and age, basic healthcare is a fundamental human right.
If you're a moron, yes, you can look at it that way. But there's no rational basis for making that claim. It ignores what the word "right" actually means. There is no way to define "right" such that it has any serious meaning, and that it can include "basic healthcare."
Simply put, anyone who says "health care is a right" doesn't know what a "right" is.
Even if the bill is unconstitutional, anything less so clearly shows a complete lack of respect for the dignity of individual human beings
Yes, Bruce, this is exactly what I mean when I say that Gregoire, and many liberals, including you, hate the rule of law. It does not MATTER to you that it is unconstitutional, because you WANT it.
You're greedy, you're selfish, and you hate all rights except when they happen to benefit your agenda.
I know you prefer the first analysis because you view individual liberty as paramount. I strongly disagree.
Then you hate the basis for why this country was founded. THE reason, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, that governments exist is to secure individual liberty. Individual liberty IS paramount, as the document that founded this nation clearly states.
And if you, or your mythical "majority of Americans," disagree, then they are wrong. Majorities have no right to override individual liberties just because they want to. That is why we have a republic, a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights. Which is, of course, why you hate those things, because they prevent you from forcing your will on minorities.
You make good points about liberty. But your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the other side of the issue is a signifcant character flaw
I did acknowledge the other side. The "other side" was my main point! You hate the rule of law. That's the other side. And you even admitted it.
Any alleged right of one man that violates the right of another, cannot be a right.
Forcing one man to pay for the lifestyle or luck of another man is immoral. While I may have sympathy for someone who I don't know on the East Coast who ends up with cancer, I have no obligation to fund them, any more than they have an obligation to pay for the rest of my life's worth of dental cleanings.
There is a false belief that somehow, because we have arrived at a technological level of sophistication in our country to where we see everyone with a basic quality of life that is pretty good, that we have an obligation to fully fund those lives.
But this destroys the concept of value. Because ultimately things that we value have a cost. And each of us has a natural right to be free to choose the values we desire.
Once the "basic right" genie is out of the bottle, there is no end to what can be called a basic right. A balanced tasty meal three times a day? A relatively new and comfortable dwelling? Free transportation to and from work? Free toilet paper? Free sewers? Free water?
If we don't agree to pay each other for all of the things we need to live, but that are not free to produce, in return for value delivered, then all of society breaks down in to a miasma of expectation and entitlement. It cannot be that everything necessary to live is paid for by someone else.
Hey, Pudge, did you say any of that during the Iraq Invasion, the 4th Amendment-violating wiretaps from 2002 to 2006 (and perhaps still), the use of waterboarding, the incarceration and denial of civil trial to citizens without due process among "enemy combatants", or any of the other "rules of law" that were violated between 2000 and 2008?
Posted by: frede on March 24, 2010 12:01 PMYes, she does. She explicitly ignores the question of whether or not the bill is constitutional, focusing instead on whether she likes the bill. That is hating the rule of law: choosing to put your personal preferences over what the law says.
Why must you slander and defame our elected officials?
I didn't do either. Everything I said is true; you may disagree with my characterization, but characterizations cannot be -- in the legal sense -- defamation (of which slander is a type). My facts are accurate, and my characterization is clearly based on those facts.
And I must attack my elected officials when they do wrong things. I've attacked McKenna before, too, on multiple occasions. And Bush. And McCain. And Romney.
Can't you make a reasoned argument without telling vile lies.
I did precisely that, in fact. Why can't YOU address my argument, instead of whining about how you dislike what I said? You cannot identify a single lie I told, and you can only ignore that I presented a reasoned argument if you're dishonest.
One day you hope for our Elected officials painful death
YOU are the one telling vile lies. I've never done any such thing.
the next you show you have no understanding of the underlying issues
False. And I defy you to demonstrate that I have ever "shown" this.
and now you slander our Governor
Technically, no, I did not.
Your hatred of our country and our system of Government ...
Does not exist.
In fact, I am the one defending our system of government, and, of course, in my opinion, our country. Gregoire is the one ignoring how our system of government works. Literally and explicitly. I would not say she hates our country, though she does hate the philosophical framework that has created and maintained our country.
It's all hate all the time for the party of NO.
I love being in the party of No. NO violations of law. NO violations of the Constitution. NO broken promises. NO corruption. NO vote-trading. NO special favors.
Sounds great to me.
remember these things as you lose election after election in Novemnber.
What color is the sky in your world?
Hey, Pudge, did you say any of that during the Iraq Invasion, the 4th Amendment-violating wiretaps from 2002 to 2006 (and perhaps still), the use of waterboarding, the incarceration and denial of civil trial to citizens without due process among "enemy combatants", or any of the other "rules of law" that were violated between 2000 and 2008?
Yes.
There was nothing illegal about the Iraq invasion, but I always maintained that the law should be followed. It was. I wonder what violation you think happened?
I spoke out against the wiretaps as soon as news broke about them. Within a day or three.
On waterboarding, my position was always that IF it is illegal, THEREFORE we should not do it. I was mostly with McCain on that. (I am still not convinced it WAS illegal, but I supported the right of Congress to make it explicitly illegal, so there was no more question.)
I was always in favor of full civil rights for citizens who are held as terrorists, such as Jose Padilla.
So ... yeah, frede, you have no tu quoque argument with me. I was considently on the side of the rule of law all through Bush's administration, which sometimes led to my criticism of that administration.
I've got nothing to add. Just keep doing what you're doing... it's a thing of beauty.
Posted by: Hinton on March 24, 2010 12:24 PM"Mr. Cynical, yes, the anger is reaching a terrible boiling point. It's reaching a boiling point on the other side, too. Problem is, though, that on OUR side we are angry about our rights and property being TAKEN FROM US. On the other side, they are angry because we are not being forced to GIVE THEM what is OURS."
Whose side is this?
And this?
And this?
Perhaps one defending our system of government would defend the rule of law first and foremost.
But don't expect to hear that from a 2nd rate propagandist and instigator.
Galations 6
If upheld, it would give the government unprecedented power to regulate or mandate or prohibit ANY activity by making some loose connection to interstate commerce. Scary.
For example, it would be easy to make a connection that voting for federal office has a HUGE impact on interstate commerce, and then impose penalties on those who choose not to vote. It's a ridiculous example, but one that would be within their scope of power if SCOTUS upholds this. It really sets a very dangerous precedent.
Posted by: Palouse on March 24, 2010 12:54 PMI did not, and do not, condone acts of violence. I am saying the violence from the right is precipitated by the left stealing from property and liberty.
(And by the way, Republican John Koster's office was broken into a week or so ago, here in Arlington.)
And as to the "gun sights" thing on Palin's site ... oh please, please, stop being an idiot. There is no remote implication of violence there, any more than there is when a Democrat says they are "targetting" certain Republicans. It's a metaphor that ALL PEOPLE IN POLITICS use.
Stop being so stupid.
Palouse: It would be the first time in US history that the commerce clause has been used to regulate inactivity.
Well, not quite, the way you phrased it. It would be the first time that inactivity would be banned, but inactivity has been forced before. Of course, Wickard is widely seen as an atrocious decision, and it was explicitly panned by the Supreme Court in 1995 ... though they relied on it in the Raich marijuana case.
That said, though, Wickard was about forcing people TO NOT engage in "commerce," whereas this is about forcing people TO engage in commerce. As bad as Wickard was, it's not this bad.
His income is at the threshold level on if he has to pay or be subsidized. He thinks his best interest may be to take a month unpaid vacation. He would come out ahead by doing so.
Wonder how many others his age figured that out.
Posted by: Vince on March 24, 2010 01:33 PMFines for not exercising freedom of religion?
Fines for not owning a gun?
Fines for not exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights?
It's just political rhetoric designed to hide from us their real intent - to control the people.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 24, 2010 01:34 PMHere, we are being subject to this mandate by simply being alive. And we are choosing not to engage in any economic activity. Big difference.
Posted by: Palouse on March 24, 2010 01:36 PMAs far as commerce related, or non-commerce related activity, the brief (link) also covers this and the fact that insurance was ruled in 1944 (if I remember the year from the brief) as being a commerce activity and falling under the commerce clause and thus eligible for federal regulation. I will give you example of how it falls under interstate commerce. For a few years (5), I worked as a contractor for a Virginia based company working on a contract her in Washington state. Out of my wages, I paid premiums to Unicare (part of Wellpoint's system of health systems). These were paid by the company (from Virginia) to Unicare, which in term set up for Premera to be the state based implementer of the insurance. So, what you have is a commerce activity from Washington State to Virginia to ? (not sure Unicare's state) back to Washington State to Premera who then pays the local doctor (e.g., doctor's visit). Therefore, you have a perfect example of interstate commerce being conducted and thus why as the 1944 Court decision ruling insurance as falling under the Commerce clause, why the Federal Government has the right to regulate insurance. The only argument, I see is whether the Mandate itself is constitutional, unless the Supreme court recinds previous precedent ruling that insurance is not covered under the commerce clause (1944 decision).
I also do not think the claim in the Florida AG filing about Medicaid expansion will fly, since Medicaid has already a clause that allows the state to opt-out of the program. Therefore, I view it like the highway dollars related regulations by the federal government, like the drinking age. Wisconsin seriously considered forgoing the federal highway dollars to not raise the drinking age to 21 (due to loss of beer sales in the state). It was a close trade off. Therefore, on this claim, since the federal government is providing some dollars and the state accepts those dollars, then it opens itself up to the rules the federal government attaches to those dollars. Just my two cents.
Posted by: tc on March 24, 2010 01:42 PMIf you apply the same standard to the Wickard case, it would be like the federal government mandating that EVERYONE must grow a crop of wheat so that the burden of wheat production would not have to fall only on the handful of wheat farmers.
I'm not questioning whether Congress has the ability to regulate health care companies, and I don't believe the lawsuits are doing that either.
Posted by: Palouse on March 24, 2010 01:56 PM
Not buying insurance is by definition, not engaging in an economic activity, and he is twisting it to try and make it so to justify a particular result - "universal coverage". Again, "seeking health care" and "buying insurance" are two distinct activities, and you cannot simply combine them because it's convenient.
See my previous example regarding Wickard and mandating growing wheat. People who choose not to grow wheat are engaging in inactivity, which by definition is not economic, however, those same people almost certainly will purchase something with wheat in it, so they are engaging in the market as consumers. These are separate activities. The health care mandate would be like mandating that everyone must grow wheat to support this market and "spread the burden".
Posted by: Palouse on March 24, 2010 02:26 PMThat assumes something not in evidence (in fact, that we know is often false): that they would be using those services at all ... and, as you note, whether they would be paying for them out of pocket, without insurance. Also, since there's no means testing in the bill, you cannot assume the person doesn't have the means to pay for services out of pocket, and you cannnot know whether they do ... so it's a due process violation.
Further, this is an absolutely ridiculous way to take away someone's right. WE decide as a society that hospitals MUST treat people ... and then if you use that privilege that WE decided to offer, we can then use that as leverage to take away your right to not have insurance? That's completely immoral and irrational.
That is, if we recognize that someone has a prima facie right to not engage in commerce, we cannot take a service we mandated hospitals offer to you, and use that as leverage to take away your right.
insurance was ruled in 1944 (if I remember the year from the brief) as being a commerce activity and falling under the commerce clause and thus eligible for federal regulation
"Regulation" does not mean "control any way you see fit." That was clearly never the intention of the interstate commerce clause, and it is clearly how the Democrats choose to intepret it today.
I will give you example of how it falls under interstate commerce.
Irrelevant. No one is saying insurance is not an interstate issue. I am employed by a company in California, who pays for part of insurance I get here in WA. But does that mean the government can mandate everything about that insurance, including whether I decide to purchase it? Of course not. That is way beyond the intent of the limited government established by the Constitution.
What is a right? what is a right as established by the framers of our constitution and bill of rights? What do people think are "rights" today?
Are rights just anything we think is valuable today? Does it matter what people thought 230 years ago?
Does it matter what the original intent was regarding the role and scope of government?
How you answer these questions will pretty much determine your opinion on the current health care debate as well as many other hot topics of the day.
IF you take a moment and look at what rights were established in the bill or rights, you will see a pattern. Three things should be clear: 1) the rights are for you and against the intrusion of the state, and 2) the rights are about what you are allowed to do and not what the government is allowed to do to/for you. 3) corollary to 2 is that there is nothing about what you are entitled to GET or receive.
Add to that the specific point that the government has limited powers and what is not explicit TO the fed is thus denied it.
That is the basis for originalists and others on the right that see expansion of government and the adding of other so called "rights" to be anathema.
Does the original framing of these rights and powers matter today? Is it UNconstitutional to extend rights beyond the "free to do" into the realm of "things you are entitled to have"?
That seems to be the fundamental split between left and right. While I can agree with the basic humanitarian ideal that a rich country should be able to take care of its citizens in a fair and equitable way, it also seems to me that you have to fundamentally change the how this country was founded to achieve that goal.
I think it requires an unfaithful understanding of our country's founding to say that the rights to "have" are no different than the the rights to "do". I think people get lost in the idea of their moral view and try to bend the constitution to match what they think is right because to do otherwise would force them to acknowledge that the founding laws of this country are wrong and need to be over-thrown. Many on the right believe that is exactly what the left is trying to do, one tiny step at a time as they remake the country into their own image all the while insisting that it completely true to the original founding.
Posted by: Eyago on March 24, 2010 03:32 PM"I did not, and do not, condone acts of violence. I am saying the violence from the right is precipitated by the left "Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 24, 2010 04:10 PM
For those who are for this healthcare law, will you support it if Republicans end up defining and implementing it? Remember, much of it doesn't go into effect until 2014. Will you be as comfortable allowing all of your medical records to be seen by the IRS? Will you blindly trust, or will you question your government. Based on the blasts about Bush in the comments above, my guess is you will be screaming questions constantly.
Posted by: Shel Belle on March 24, 2010 04:52 PMReap, meet sow.
Shel Belle: This blog is evidence that the constitutionality of the federal mandate to purchase health insurance is not clearly defined.
That would be hard, since it's unconstitutional. :-)
My concern is, if this mandate is found to be constitutional, there is no end to what government can force us to purchase
Which is exactly what the left wants, yes. They SEE no limits. At all. Period. There is, to the left, utterly no limit to federal power.
Your son's comment is the sound of Atlas Shrugging.
Call him John Galt from now on.
Posted by: Andy on March 24, 2010 05:20 PMPosted by: Bruce on March 23, 2010 11:14 PM
I needed a good belly laugh. Thanks Bruce. It's just been so serious lately, a little levity is a good thing.
By the way, I do still have a right to be a millionaire, right? Would you agree that I have a right to get plastic surgery until I look just like Classical Barbie? What about that 17,000 square foot chalet on Lake WA? Do I have a right to have that? If I REALLY, REALLY, want it? What if I NEED it? I have a lot of relatives, and I think we might get violent if we have to live together in a cramped space. It could be life or death. It would be for the children.
I think you have to agree that I have a right to all of these things, and they aren't even the tip of the iceberg. I really love cruise ships...
Can you get started on putting my rights into policy? That'll be great. Thanks!
Posted by: Julie on March 24, 2010 07:04 PMJeff @ 58 "Forcing one man to pay for the lifestyle or luck of another man is immoral."
What you said !!!
Eyago @ 78 "While I can agree with the basic humanitarian ideal that a rich country should be able to take care of its citizens in a fair and equitable way,.."
IMO, a large majority of Americans would agree. But, like "right", the word "country" also means 2 different things in current political discourse: for the statists, "country" means "government;" for constitutionalists, "country" means "the people." Look at the damage to our economy BY government. Those stolen and wasted resources could easily have provided vastly more food, housing and medical care had they been left in the hands of their owners, the people of the most generous and giving society ever. Governments are neither human nor humanitarian. If our "country" is only "humanitarian" to the extent of what our government doles or does, we are of all societies most to be pitied.
But in reality, they KNOW deep down that what they have done is unconstitutional. And with that fact, all those who taken an oath to protect the constitution have broken that oath. Therefore they should be recalled from office.
Posted by: Unfit For The Internet on March 25, 2010 08:53 AMI wonder who we should believe?
Posted by: iconoclast on March 25, 2010 09:16 AMI called Jeannie's office this morning @ 360 786 7974. I talked to her staffer Nancy Ryan. I explained to her that I ama cancer patient whose chances for survival have decreased with the Obama abomination. She started to tell me about McKenna not consulting with the legislature. I cut her off and asked if she understood that the Attorney General works for my interests and is not a toady of the legislature.
Gee, I wonder if the state would have more money if someone hadn't given away the leverage to get casino money from the tribes, but I disgress. I told Nancy that if Jeannie goes through with her attack on my constitution being defended that I guarantee that every time she comes up for election I will donate $100.00 to her Democrat opponent in the primary and $50.00 to her Republican opponent in the general election.
I may or may not have a quarrel with her Democrat primary opponent but I'll deal with him or her later. I want her scalp and I want her to know I will pay money until I get it. She has to be made to understand that she will being paying the price personally for her sleazy treachery.
Again the phone 360 786 7974number
Posted by: Enraged Patient on March 25, 2010 10:10 AMTo that end, I suggest two more purchase mandates: guns and tobacco. Everyone should be required to purchase a firearm or pay the federal government a fine for not purchasing a firearm. And everyone should be required to purchase a certain number of cigarettes each year or pay a substantial fine. If a majority of us think it such mandates are reasonable, why shouldn't we be able to force our fellow citizens to purchase those products?
Posted by: iconoclast on March 25, 2010 01:32 PMWoe is me!
I can't remember which Alinsky Rule for Radicals this is--change the subject (when 62% of America, per CBS, wants the Repubs to keep fighting Death Race 2000-care)...
Posted by: Not Schramm on March 25, 2010 05:54 PM