ObamaCare’s individual mandate likely to be found unconstitutional

As of this writing, 14 states have joined in the lawsuit headed by Attorney General Bill McCollum of Florida suing the federal government’s recent healthcare law, stating that it violates the Commerce Clause, forces states to cover programs they can’t afford, and forces every American to purchase healthcare insurance. Some pundits say that the Supreme Court will not overturn the law, but they have overturned similar laws, and all hope is not lost.

In 1936, the conservative Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes overturned several of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. To get back at the court, President Roosevelt sought to do some “court packing” by proposing the Judicial Reorganization Bill which would allow the president “to name a new federal judge for each judge who didn’t retire by 70 1/2” and of those, six would be added to the Supreme Court.

The president received quite a push-back from both parties, but refused to compromise. In the end, he not only lost the bill but the Democrats lost control of Congress in the next election.

Opponents of the law see Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia as the conservatives who could vote with the states in overturning the new law, and Justice Kennedy as the deciding factor.

The 1995 case, United States vs. Lopez, gave us an insight into Kennedy’s view of the Commerce Clause. Justice Kennedy said that Congress is limited in its powers under the Commerce Clause. If Congress could “regulate local acts of gun violence simply because it had a local impact,” then they could nationalize the police force on the theory that all crime has an economic impact.

Supporters of the law state that insurance coverage has an economic activity. This may be true, but right now insurance is regulated by the state. In the Lopez case, the Rehnquist Court stated that Congress had overstepped its boundaries in regards to the 10th Amendment.

Congress and the president want to make not purchasing healthcare insurance a crime punishable by a fine or jail time. If the Supreme Court doesn’t stop the healthcare bill, then what is to stop Congress from passing bills mandating that we buy a General Motors car every year?

Congress could take their win as a ruling that they can force us to purchase anything even if we don’t want it.

In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justice Clarence Thomas stated that “If Congress can regulate this [marijuana] under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

We must support any governor, lt. governor, or attorney general who joins the fight against this unconstitutional law. It is vital that we support congressional candidates who will work to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a free market system that includes tort reform. We can win this fight but we have to continue to make repeal and replace a theme of this year’s mid-term elections.

Laura Lunsford

Fayetteville, Ga.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Not a fan of Mandatory Health Care....BUT

I was never in favor of mandating health care. I support Health Care Reform, but didn't support the mandate. BUT...here is what no one seems to want to talk about.... I support the elimination of pre-existing conditions for too many reasons to talk about. Here is the rub. If you can't deny coverage for a pre-existing condition, then what is to stop someone from not having health care until they develop a condition, say cancer. Then they plop down their $500 and buy a policy that can't be denied. Then receive $100,000 of treatment, go into remission, and cancel their coverage until next time?
Now, a lot of posts claim the failure of the Dems to secure input from the Repubs. How so? Is there a Public Option? NO. Is the reform immediate? NO. Both obvious compromises made to the Repubs. (along with others).
The "compromise" by the Repubs. was "our way or the highway, and our way is NO WAY!" Don't really see the compromise in that. So now, it's "let's sue because it demands I have insurance." I have one question for each of you, Are you planning to drop your health care and "self insure?" When you retire are you planning to use Medicare (govt. health) or continue to plop down $1000 plus in premiums to keep private health? Or simply hope you don't ever need medical care? Weren't you the guys that always complained that our Health Care Premiums were so high because of all the uninsured people who go to Emergency Rooms and we pay the bill? Yet now you complain about those very people being mandated to have insurance?
Folks, Health care reform is doable. But if the conservative factions only answer is HELL NO then there will be no compromise.
One other quick question, if the Repubs had such a great health care reform bill, why didn't they pass it when they controlled the Congress AND the White House? Where was the magic "Tort Reform" that would immediately lower premiums?
Nowhere. No plan, no ideas, no reform, no action, simply JUST SAY NO.
Perfect.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Commerce Clause challenge loses in court

A federal judge in Michigan has upheld the constitutionality of Health Care Reform by specifically ruling that it did NOT violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The health care opponents' next hope will be conservative judicial activists on the US Court of Appeals, and if they fail at that level (as many expect), they plan on appealing to the conservative judicial activists on the United States Supreme Court.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Commerce Clause Challenge

What a pity tht we don't have a "common sense" clause!! The disappearance of common sense is evident.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
But we do have

a Good and Plenty clause. It's all part of that "Pursuit of Happiness" thing.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Commerce Clause challenge wins in court
Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist

Without saying whether this required insurance law is Constitutional, I am willing to bet that it will be found Constitutional, and if not some other version of it will pass!

We have had many mandatory things in the past, which were for the good of the population. Auto Insurance for example.

You will say, well you don't have to own a car.......and I will say you also don't have to go to a hospital with a broken arm.

Taxes is also a good example.
The draft, before it was dropped----not found unconstitutional.
And on and on.

There is also the likelihood that revisions to the mandatory law will occur to suit all the possibilities.

This law WILL NOT prevent those with money from going where ever they want and paying what it costs for the very best treatment.

Small businesses will get tax breaks to pay their share for their employees in special point of service, cheap, institutions.

Health insurance companies will form conglomerates, as do liability insurance companies, to share the burden of excessive costs.

Even Lloyd's of London gets other Insurance companies to share in great costs over certain huge claims!

It is not rocket science, nor "socialistic." It is a right.

It also is not now in the 1700's today. (No doctor's with knowledge or medicine and rights of the wealthy only!)

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Well CHR$

There's some that will disagree with you.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist

Of course!
If none disagreed with me, there would be no cause for me to write this!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
CHR$

Sorry about being short on my comment. I had to move to another location. This is heading to the great big court, the sooner the better. However, the bigger problem still looms - health care cost is at $248 million an hour and growing. All this law did was to set the insurance companies up to fail. If it passes the Supremes we'll have the single payer scheme in time.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
As opposed to the liberal judicial activist that just ruled

the Government has a right to force you to participate in commerce.

Yeah I see this one holding up.

Mind showing me in the Constitution where you believe they have the right to do so?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Good luck stormin' the castle!
Observerofu wrote:

the Government has a right to force you to participate in commerce.

That's a Fox News talking point that has not been validated in a court of law.

Observerofu wrote:

Yeah I see this one holding up.

Well, you have a documented history of distorting reality see what you want to see! (see also: Observerofu: "NY Times calls it an 'anti-honor' rally")

Observerofu wrote:

Mind showing me in the Constitution where you believe they have the right to do so?

I sure would mind! I know you guys want us to be on the defensive all the time, but sadly, the burden of proof is on YOU this time! Congress passed a law, the President signed it, and a Federal judge has rejected a specious challenge on Constitutional grounds. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to explain how the ACA is somehow "unconstitutional".

Good luck stormin' the castle, son!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
From "hope and change" to "hand to hand combat"

What happened to all of that bipartisanship and hope n' change stuff that Obumbles promised?

Obama promises 'hand to hand combat' if GOP wins

After hearing VP Biden discuss strangling Republicans, Barack Obama promises hand to hand combat if Republicans win big in November.

Democrats sure are a violent bunch......

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi

The OFFER of bi-partisanship was ANSWERED WITH HELL NO! There will be a fight - and the sad reality is that the citizens lose!! We need leaders who work for US!!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Obama set the tone from day one...

Obama to GOP: ‘I Won’

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

Republicans never said "hell no". (Another LIE by David's Mom)

But Obumbles did set the tone in Washington and basically told Republicans that their input was not wanted.

Obama: ‘Don’t Want the Folks Who Created the Mess to Do a Lot of Talking’

"But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

There was no offer of bipartisanship. Obama didn't walk the talk. He just said it during his campaign so people would think that he would work with Republicans. He has proven time and time again that he had absolutely no intention of negotiating with them. He can't help it - He is a liar.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bi-partisanship offer?

Oh, like what was offered during the ramp-up for the healthcare reform bill?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Good faith?
Cyclist wrote:

Oh, like what was offered during the ramp-up for the healthcare reform bill?

Cyclist, do you feel that the Republicans negotiated in good faith during the debate over health care reform?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bacon: Good faith?

Tell me how much negotiation did we see in the house when that plan was in the making? The house demos did need to negotiate because of their numbers and that resulted in one hugely expensive and crazy proposal. That's why that plan could not pass muster with the more conservative Senate.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Good faith
Cyclist wrote:

Tell me how much negotiation did we see in the house when that plan was in the making? The house demos did need to negotiate because of their numbers and that resulted in one hugely expensive and crazy proposal. That's why that plan could not pass muster with the more conservative Senate.

Cyclist, answering a question with another question is considered gauche in polite society. We expect better from you.

I'll ask the question once more: Do you feel that the Republican party negotiated in good faith on health care reform legislation?

I feel that the Democratic party negotiated in good faith, and that the Republicans did not. I'm curious as to your opinion on this matter.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bacon,

Other than the three obscure bills that were offered by the repubs as an alternative there were no negotiations that I'm aware of between the parties. The house, I feel, is controlled by extremes - right and left. I am curious that given the numerical advantage the demos have in the house why would they have the need to negotiate?

Sorry about the time it took in responding. I'm replacing siding on the garage. I would rather be riding.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Just remember this Bacon....

congress passed the NRA and was signed by FDR. It was finaly overturned by the "Supremes" in '35. There are some things the "Guv" should not be involved in.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
If you can't answer the question just say so

I am sure we all understand.

Oh and BTW-- this time I will call you a liar.

See also where I never said NY Times said anything. So Bacon you are distorting facts to fit your own views thus you are a liar. If you can't argue logically I guess lie about your opponent is a tried and true tactic.
You sir/madame are a pathetic example of the progressive party.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
NotLindsey

NotLindsey,

Let me see if I have your positions this straight:

*I* pointed out *your* putting words in someone else's mouth earlier this week, so that proved that *I* was a "liar".

*I* challenged you to identify the legal basis for your claim that the ACA was unconstitutional, and *you* could not do so, so that "proves" that *I* somehow "lost" the argument.

I suspect you are really looking forward to the day when *your* daughter gets arrested for selling drugs outside the Goldrush Showbar....because that will "prove" to everyone what a poor parent *I* am.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Face it Bacon you lied and now you and Gort are back tracking

Trying to throw off your failures of being unable to back up your arguments. You can't justify your party's linking arms and walking in stride with Communist and Socialist. Your failure in answering a simple little question like show us in the Constitution where this power comes from to force us to consume a product?

Now you are trying to obfuscate your lack of ability to argue intelligently.

You and Gort suspect I am Lindsey. Ok I take the compliment. I have known him for about 3 years and have been a customer of his ever since. He is the reason I am here and aware of many issues. So you can continue wondering or just quit trying to run from the questions and backup your arguments if you are capable of doing so.

Now as to the family thing. Just what is your problem? You are a sick little person. I will pray for you tonight. Someone like you should really seek good mental advice.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, you just can’t help

OofU, you just can’t help yourself, can you? You enjoy calling people a liar and swinging that “communist socialist” bat at everyone that doesn’t buy into your angry guy Teaparty philosophy. Normally I would try to appeal to your better nature and ask you to stop it but I’m guessing this is as good as you get. I will just have to satisfy myself to retaliate in kind whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Now about this S.Lindsey is OofU thing. Up to now, I did believe you are one and the same however, after reading your flowery description of your relationship…

Quote:

You and Gort suspect I am Lindsey. Ok I take the compliment. I have known him for about 3 years and have been a customer of his ever since. He is the reason I am here and aware of many issues. So you can continue wondering …

Have it your way, I’m wondering! Are you two a couple of those Log Cabin Republican’s, riding the Appalachian Trail together, on the far side of Brokeback Mountain?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort if you are going to play the Ostrich

at least cover up.

I guess if you ignore Bacon's rant and just used mine then I guess you may assume whatever you wish. But since this is not bazaaro world and I live in reality your assumption that I played any card is ridiculous.
But go ahead there big guy and wonder away. Next time however you and your good buddy bacon get together and want to gang up feel free to go all brokeback without me.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I always enjoy myself

OofU, I always enjoy myself when I go to "The Citizen" forum and see CPB, (or anyone else for that matter,) busting your chops. You get all hyper and write funny stuff like...

Quote:

You and Gort suspect I am Lindsey. Ok I take the compliment. I have known him for about 3 years and have been a customer of his ever since. He is the reason I am here and aware of many issues. So you can continue wondering …

It’s just too funny to pass up.

BTW, you can't be a regular watcher of Fox News and make the claim you don't live in "bazaaro world".

BTW2, I see you’re making an effort on that name calling thing. At least I'm not a lying communist socialist ostrich. Good start OofU, keep it up!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
No I will leave the childish name calling to Bacon

as well as the disrespect he gives to ones family.

That one is all his. But I can and will respond. Now if you and bacon wish for an intelligent discourse without rancor and a sharing of ideas then great I am all for that. But when you, bacon and Nuk take out of context a sentence and then ascribe actions not otherwise implied well in anyones dictionary that is dishonest and civility be damned.

I am sure bacon appreciates your ardent defense of his actions. It is strange you happen to mention Broke back Mtn and all the while riding to his defense.

Are you hitting on him perhaps or already really good friends?

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
BaconBasmatiLocke

Just can't avoid dragging someones family into your arguments can you?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
hutch

I missed the "dragging in of family" thing.

Wasn't it a "what if" situation, and how would you feel?
I'd just ignore that.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Chr$

Here you go "I suspect you are really looking forward to the day when *your* daughter gets arrested for selling drugs outside the Goldrush Showbar....because that will "prove" to everyone what a poor parent *I* am."
Just another example of the class act our BaconsnifflesBas is. What if situation? I don't think so.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
hutch866, OofU started it by

hutch866, OofU started it by playing the “you’re a liar card.” Or is this just one of your Carl Rove tricks to attack the messenger to distract people away from the message?

Besides, OofU is making the political argument that denies reasonable cost health insurance to my children. The fact is, none of our children are immune from the threat of the special interest that OofU defends.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Gort

Well Gort, the fact that you feel its ok to insult someones children just because you don't like their politics tells a lot about you. Just another keyboard cowboy it appears.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I have to wonder about such people

to have a political disagreement is just good discourse but to try to insult and incite an angry response is irresponsible at best.

I am surprised the Moderator allows these two to incite potential violence like this. To argue against ones political adversary is one thing to bring in ones family well is just wrong.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, the moderator might get

OofU, the moderator might get me yet. If he doesn’t, maybe you can ask S.Lindsey for some help? S.Lindsey and the moderator were pen pals for a while. Then S.Lindsey went into his self imposed exile, and then OufU suddenly appeared. Well, you know the rest.

BTW, this is a funny post too. It reads like something Lumpy Rutherford would say, after Ward Cleaver unexpectedly walked into Wally's bedroom and caught the boys horsing around. See you in the funny papers.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well I am glad to know where you draw the line.

At least you are consistent with the Progressive philosophy of "The Ends justifies the means".

Like your bareback buddy bacon a crass response is indicative of shall we say shortcomings in areas we need not go into here.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, look the moderator

OofU, look the moderator didn’t get me! Whoo-hoo, I’m alive! I’m alive!

I still think you and S.Lindsey are the same person but, if I’m wrong, answer me one question?

What section of the constitution allows:

Quote:

OofU, (pronounced EwFu,) goes “Ga-Ga” for Lindsey?

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Gort

Spin it anyway way you want to, but the fact remains our SnifflesBaslocke guy always does this. OoU never mentioned SnifflesBaslocke's family. I never mentioned anything about politics and I don't have any Carl Rove tricks, but if it makes you feel better to go there, go ahead.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Hutch866, thank you, I do

Hutch866, thank you, I do feel better knowing I have your blessing.

Locke
Locke's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/14/2007
Hutch866

You have confused me with someone else.

Locke

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Locke

I don't believe so.

Locke
Locke's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/14/2007
Well Hutch866

If you might notice, I have been Locke since May of 2007. I have been Locke through the multiple personalities of Bastimi. I was Locke during the BPR drama. I was Locke back when Mixer was here. My only reason for informing you is that although I agree with them politically on some things, I find some of comments of those you attribute to be me to be distasteful, sometimes extremely so. Believe what you wish. I only ask that when I do write something you would consider weighing it without the prejudice of automatically assigning it to the ravings of super liberals. Even though I might agree with their underlying philosophy.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, there was a time, in

OofU, there was a time, in our recent past, when all our questions about the Constitution could be easily answered. We had our own resident expert that held court in this very forum on “The Citizen.”

What he didn’t know, he made up!

He went by the handle of S.Lindsey. Perhaps you can channel his spirit and get the answer you seek!

I understand he is on Facebook too!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Not my argument

I did not say that the Constitution allowed the Government to force us to consume a product i.e. Healthcare.
That was your buddy. Now he/she can't seem to offer a logical argument all he/she can do is insult and lie. I suspect you can do no less.

btw-You said "OofU started it by playing the “you’re a liar card.” Or is this just one of your Carl Rove tricks to attack the messenger to distract people away from the message?"

I guess you missed the whole episode of Bacon calling me a liar over the One Nation Rally thing huh? His/her whole diatribe was on one sentence in the entire post. It seems he/she had a hard time distinguishing Opinions from Facts. But I guess facts mean little to you or Bacon.

So please continue to misrepresent the facts. Good Progressives like you are needed to show the next Generation just what went wrong with America.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Peter Piefer & Pickin' Pack of Peppers

I guess we won't wait for the newly clothe Repug Peter to comment on how Sunny is waging a frivilous lawsuit (w/ a gratis attorney). But I guess if we elect AnyDeal & that AG candidate that bought 2 jackasses for Cobb Co, we can all expect to pay. At least any money ole Roy earned was when he won on the merits of the case or on his own dime.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Healthcare Law IS Constitutional

People who opine that the newly enacted healthcare law is somehow "unconstitutional" seem to lack a clear understanding of the United States Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly empowers the Congress to levy taxes.

The Affordacare legislation grants an automatic tax credit to those Americans covered by health insurance, and rescinds the automatic tax credit to those Americans who eschew personal responsibility and opt not to carry health insurance.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
*

*

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
So self insuring

is out of the question to you? Or choosing to carry something with a much higher deductible than others and paying a lessor premium? How do all those things fit into this Obamacare?

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
Constitution Article 1 Section 8

Bacon time for you to take a constitutional course.

First we must look at the founder's intent to understand the true meaning of the clause. Thomas Jefferson said that this clause was "not a grant of power to "spend' for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to "limit the power of taxation" to matters which provided for the welfare of "the Union" or the welfare of the nation. This clearly shows that federal taxes could not be levied for states, counties, or special interest groups."

The recent Healthcare bill falls into those areas which cannot be levied for taxes.

Hamilton later wrote in support of Jefferson's views. MacLaine said "Congress will not lay a single tax when it is not to the advantage of the people at large".

The bill is unconstitutional based on the above article as well as the Equality Protection Clause which states that no state or persons shall receive special treatment. In the bill we have several states receiving special treatment as we saw with the deals being brokered.

The bill is unconstitutional also on the grounds of the General Welfare clause in the Commerce Clause. In the Supreme Court Case of Sugar Trust the court clearly stated "The sale of any product is merely an incident of its production and is therefore under the domain of the state because its effect on interstate commerce is merely incidental".

Now to be completely unbiased YES previous presidents and administrations have abused the constitution and expanded the federal government into areas it is not lawfully able to go. AND YES no one fought it. WE THE PEOPLE finally woke up and I thank our president for that great awakening. I don't believe you will find a future president of either party getting away with expanding government without a major fight from WE THE PEOPLE.

I would like to recommend www.constitutiontownhall.org as a great reference for learning about the constitution as well as any of the founding father's own words.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Precedent is against you doright

The constitutional precedent of the Sugar Trust case is peripheral at best. Those advocating it as a basis for overturning the health care bill are grasping at straws or attempting to fool people for political purposes. I don't object to either tactic, but to make an argument that health care is unconstitutional you're going to have to address the relevant cases.

The same tax arguments being heard now were the basis for challenging Social Security, specifically in the cases of Helvering vs. Davis, the Steward Machine Company, and Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co. and Gulf States Paper:

George Davis was a minor stockholder in the Edison Electric Illuminating Company. Edison, like every industrial employer in the nation, was readying itself to start paying the employers' share of the payroll tax in January 1937. Mr. Davis objected to this arguing that by making this expenditure Edison was robbing him of part of his equity, so he sued Edison to prevent their compliance with the Social Security Act. The attorneys for Davis argued that the payroll tax was a new type of tax not listed in the Constitution's tally of taxes, and so it was unconstitutional.

In the Steward Machine Company case the unemployment compensation provisions of the Act were disputed. The Company paid its first unemployment tax installment and then sued the government to recover the payment, claiming the Social Security Act was unconstitutional. Steward made the same as points as Davis about the meaning of the word "tax," and argued in addition that the unemployment compensation program could not qualify as "providing for the general welfare."

The Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co. and Gulf States Paper case disputed the validity of the unemployment compensation program. The companies were challenging the state portion of the federal/state arrangement. Unwilling to pay their share of state unemployment compensation taxes the two companies sued the state of Alabama declaring that it was the Social Security Act, which they deemed unconstitutional, that gave Alabama its authority to tax them in this way and since they believed the Act to be invalid, they did not have to pay the tax.

Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. and clarified the Court's view on the scope of the government's spending authority: "There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison. . ." It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that ... the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose [other] than the promotion of the general welfare."

The ruling in the Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co. and Gulf States Paper case said: "Together the two statutes now before us embody a cooperative legislative effort by state and national governments, for carrying out a public purpose common to both, which neither could fully achieve without the cooperation of the other. The Constitution does not prohibit such cooperation."

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
spyglass, doright. jeff and wedge

The Constitution is what we say it is---even if it has to go to the Supreme Court!

Something over two hundred years of age has to be interpreted sometimes.

For instance: is a "well regulated militia" anybody with a gun?

Of course not, so we have to ask the court to say what is best for the country.

Should well regulated militias be able to carry atomic guns around with them?
Of course not and any court would say so---the really can't even carry gravel shooters unless the law says they can!
We are politicizing the Constitution to make it say what every group wants it to say.

Even amendments must be made as human rights progress. No slaves anymore and women can own property and vote. Indians can even open casinos!

Is all this in the Constitution? Why of course it is if the court says it is.

Is a health plan with forced participation the same as forced conscription?
Of course it is.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
New health plan and a federal judge

In researching as to just who was for and against the health plan, I discovered that just yesterday a federal judge (Washington Post, October 7) ruled that the plan was Constitutional. Bonkers himself had said that if people can be drafted into the military, then they can be forced to have health insurance.

I believe the judge just said: that if all didn't participate then those that did would be forced to pay for those that did not participate, which is unconstitutional.

The government, nor the hospitals, nor the doctors can ignore sick people who need care whether they have insurance or not.
Just as we must build roads, airports and such for use of the military to use if ever necessary to protect the US citizens. It is a duty of the government to protect it's citizens!

Anyway is it more "Christian" and American for everyone to go to a hospital or doctor and receive treatment needed, and necessary medicine, than for those who have no insurance to face the long waiting room begging for treatment, or avoiding it due to the scarlet letter of POOR.
We have 10-15% unemployment right now---these people currently are unlikely to have health insurance. Not even the majority are sorry, no-good people. Some are ignorant, but in a different way than some of us!

"The poor will always be with us," doesn't mean they can be left to die or starve.

Is the Bible Socialistic?

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Constitutionality has become historically irrelevant

Since the end of WW1 and the time through the roaring twenties, there has been a school of thought that the US Constitution should be an evolving document that does not require the intervention of the constitutional amendment process. This started with the browbeating of the sitting supreme court justices under FDR (re: court packing) and continued as the power of the federal government expanded geometrically. We are not at the point where case law and precedent continue to reinforce this interpretation of the constitution. To wit:
• We now have a privacy clause that has been inserted into the constitution. This put abortion on a continuous court cycle instead of being decided by the individual states according to their constitution.
• We now have an overarching commerce clause that even regulates the private production and consumption of food on one’s own land.
• We have an obscene ability to wage war throughout the world without a declaration of war.
• We have a bloated federal bureaucracy that has become a clearinghouse and arbiter for public monies-and public recipients thereof.
• We have immasculated and made irrelevant the Tenth amendment to the constitution “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
Court precedent just becomes a continuous validation of expanded the federal powers, until a Dred Scott-like decision is reversed. We are too far down a European road of centralized power and centralized control for anything other than an EU type state.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CP Bacon

We'll see, I suppose we are lucky we don't have to rely on your in-depth knowledge of the Constitutionality of this well thought out law.

The fact is that citizens are forced to buy a service that they may not want. So much for freedom.

Here's an idea, let's get government out of the HC business and then we don't have to worry about whether or not YOU have healthcare, or what you eat, or how you live your life. If taxpayers don't pay for it then the government doesn't have a voice in any of this. Right pal?

Or is there something in the Constitution that gives us all a "right" to HC?

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
health care in the constitution

PTC Observer I'm still looking for that health care clause in the constitution. It may be AWHILE...

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
If you don't want health insurance...

If you don't want health insurance, PTC Observer, don't buy health insurance. You simply forfeit the tax credit.

I don't see how that is so hard for you to understand.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Chris P. You didn't

answer the question.

It is not the role of government to provide for HC, I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So being forced to purchase a "product" is a TAX?

That is the most convoluted logic or lack thereof I have ever heard.

Using your logic if the Government said you could only buy a GM car and forced you under penalty of fines or imprisonment to do so.

In your view that is CONSTITUTIONAL?

You guys will stretch the fabric of reality as far as possible to justify this.

Next you will be saying that the General Welfare clause grants us the RIGHT of Universal Education.. Wait.. I forgot you already are.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You're not forced to purchase anything, Lindsey

Lindsey, you're not forced to purchase anything. If you choose to not purchase health insurance, you forfeit an automatic tax credit.

Seems rather simple to me.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh Chrispy so wrong you are

The IRS is going to STEAL your Tax refund and then go after the rest. That's a forced purchase by thief or confiscation. You can parse words any way you want to BUT if the Government takes anything from you under a penalty for not doing an act or buying a product then under any Constitutional purview it is illegal.

"Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-chief-buy-health-insurance-or-lose...

How is a Tax Refund a Tax Credit Crispy?

laura2007
laura2007's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2007
you will be forced to buy insurance

You are obviously misreading the bill and the Constitution. Congress has stated that you MUST buy insurance or you will be fined and could possibly face jail time. The annual fine will take effect in 2014 punishing anyone who hasn’t purchased insurance. The IRS recently announced that they will deduct this fine from your tax refund if you don’t have a government approved plan. This fine will increase based upon income, starting at around $200 or 1% of income, whichever is higher beginning with incomes of $20,000.

Michael C. Dorf, Professor of Law at Cornell University, cited the 1922 Supreme Court case of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. as the “current precedent for invalidating Federal fines imposed via the Commerce Clause.” The Supreme Court ruled that “Congress could not impose fines through the Commerce Clause as a means to indirectly regulate activities” and that Congress does not have the authority to “use taxation as a pretext for accomplishing a regulatory objective that it could not accomplish directly.”

Congress has the right to tax and spend money but they do NOT have the right to tell you how to spend your money and that is what this bill implies.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Forced to buy insurance?
Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You will NOT be forced to buy insurance

Laura, you are mistaken. There is no provision in the recently enacted health are reform legislation for fines OR jail time. You simply forfeit the automatic tax credit if you choose to not take personal responsibility for securing health insurance for yourself and your family.

You can, however, face fines and/or jail time if you don't pay your taxes, but those laws have been on the books for some time now.

Here is a link on how right wing media have been lying about health care reform "fines and jail time".

laura2007
laura2007's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2007
check the bill

No I'm not mistaken. Website, thomas.loc.gov, HR 3590, Section 1501, as modified by section 10106, "Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014."

In addition, Section 1513, as modified by section 10106, "Imposes fines on large employers (employers with more than 50 full-time employees) who fail to offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage or who have a waiting period for enrollment of more than 60 days."

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Read your own link

even in the link you cite, it is called an additional tax for noncompliance that can be equal to 2.5% of your AGI. It is a levied tax (or fine) as a speeding ticket is a levied tax or fine for not obeying the rules. Where do you see a credit (like the child tax credit)? You opitimize alot of what is wrong with the discourse of our country.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Constitution & HC Law

I give this challenge a good chance.

When FDR had many of his progressive programs overturned during his second administration by the Supreme Court, his response was an attempt to rewrite the Constitution. He attempted to take the court from nine to eleven Justices and pack the court with his appointees. Congress supported FDR in this effort but the citizen groundswell against this progressive take over the court was overwhelming.

Don't underestimate the arrogance of the current administration to "transform" America; they are at war with the Court. I guess like FDR, Obama didn't learn about the separation of powers at Harvard.

It is a progressive thing.

laura2007
laura2007's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2007
Overstepping their bounds

Congress does have the authority to pass health care reform, but that doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Here's the most recent list of states that have joined or will join - Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. I believe the governors of GA and MS are planning on joining even though the AG's of these states won't. They are obtaining outside legal counsel and several lawyers have offered their services pro-bono to them.

The lawsuit filed by AG McCollum asserts, among other things, "that a law forcing people to buy health insurance -- a product they may or may not want with benefits they may or may not be able to afford -- is unconstitutional." “By imposing such a mandate, the law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, the tax penalty required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution,” the attorneys general said.

From the CATO Institute, "the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company."

Truthfairy
Truthfairy's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/17/2010
Constitution Accountability Center says HCR is Constitutional!

To help set the record straight, CAC has prepared an issue brief entitled "The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution." Issue brief demonstrates that Congress clearly had the authority to pass health care reform--including the individual mandate--and that the legal challenges to the Act filed by a handful of State Attorneys General are more political theater than genuine constitutional argument. The issue brief also explains why state efforts to block implementation of the Act outright--known as state "nullification" of federal law--are an attack on the Constitution and purely symbolic at best. Finally, the issue brief highlights aspects of the Act that preserve the role of the States as "laboratories of democracy," allowing the States considerable flexibility to shape insurance exchanges or even opt out of the Act--including opting out of the individual mandate--so long as they create an alternative system that meets certain coverage and cost containment requirements."

Great 7 pages - really shows up GOP mischief for exactly what it is...empty political theater
http://www.theusconstitution.org/page_module.php?id=123&mid=2

I would be furious if, after waiting a decade for HCReform, my State AG pulled a stunt like this, without polling us...Haha saying our head of state had "rammed something down our throats" (which he didn't, he campaigned on it and that's why we voted for him)then having a paltry AG do it. I'm getting really tired of all this pouting angry teenage behavior from the likes of Boehner, and seriously concerned about the absence of maturity & responsibility in the way they frame, or should say "lie", about this bill...government takeover, socialism, unconstitutional, tyranny, against our will..all calculated to generate a negative response.

Anyone remember the big outcry about the bureaucrats making decisions for us (vs insurance providers murdering us when we get too sick!!) and all the spinning about health info technology and "big brother". Well, surprise, surprise - the GOP Better Health Information Systems Act '06
established a National Health Care Information Co-ordinator & Federal HIT Programs! My children grew out of lying by the time they were 8 yrs old, could someone help Boehner/Cantor/Hatch/McConnell do the same.

BTW, apparently in LA, Gov Jindal bribed his AG to join the other states but word is that states are beginning to pull out.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
53% Now Trust Republicans More Than Democrats on Healthcare

You wanted a poll TF.. Just thought I would supply one...

"Following the passage of the health care bill, 53% now say they trust Republicans on the issue of health care. Thirty-seven percent (37%) place their trust in Democrats. A month earlier, the two parties were essentially even on the health care issue."Rasmussen

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The Poll Game/Presidential Approval

Actually, the polls are very close (except for Fox News)

Enjoy!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Truth Fairy

You're not alone. . . . and the more this behavior is practiced by so-called responsible leaders, the more change will be seen in the development of a serious third party. . .or a viable second party (and this is not necessarily a good thing for Republicans for the next Presidential election.) But let them continue with this behavior. I remember the days when both parties had conservatives and liberals. (and both parties still do) However, a conservative right wing of the Republican Party has stifled any moderate approach to governing. Any thinking person will look at the record of recent Republican governance and economic policy and look elsewhere for leadership. What a shame.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well.. Truthfairy.. it is an opinion piece

You see there is a vast difference between OPINION and FACTS.. Opinions are reflective of the person point of
view..

btw..Your'e statement "Word is that States are beginning to pull out"

This is from todays WSJ..
"The governors of Arizona and Nevada say their states will join 14 others suing the federal government over health care reform."

You seem to have a lot of "Facts" incorrect....

The founder Doug Kendall is a progressive and Community organizer and wants to have the Constitution "re-shaped" to fit a PROGRESSIVE agenda.. His words not mine.. He is also a AGW advocate and (his words)an Environmental Radical.

Most of his staff either still are or where on board with the ACLU and other Community organizing Committees and are hard left liberals..

You see TF many Constitutional scholars NOT ATTACHED to a Washington Progressive Think tank disagree...

"The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed."

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-he...

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
mrobertc@hotmail.com

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
BTW, where is Georgia in all this?

How come we are not one of the 14 states suing to overturn Obamacare? Am I missing something?

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Because Georgia's AG is a Democrat

and he refuses to join the suit. Governor Perdue asked him to file suit but he refused, in his "opinion" it is without merit and then he uses the current economic condition of the state to say it would be "wasteful" to pursue.

I believe a group of lawyers has agreed to file on Georgia's behalf, Pro-Bono. So we'll be in there soon enough.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The AG refused? Fire him.

The AG works for the State and Purdue is the CEO. Fire the AG - whatever his name is. I don't even know who is AG. It used to be Mike Bowers and Mike would be all over this one. Why should we have a Democrat as AG? Isn't Georgia a Republican state?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Mud

You jest!
The Attorney General is elected. He must be impeached to be put out of office! Not suing the federal government (congress) for a sure loser (buying health insurance) is sensible.

If you don't want a democratic Attorney General, then run some decent republicans for the office!

And no, Georgia is not a republican state. Just like many other states (probably all of them) the independents end up making the majority vote.

Nationally that runs about 35-35-30% now. Georgia is probably 45-30-25.

No election without the independents! Many independents however do not vote unless someone is running they despise.

You speak as if you are proud of the republican works of the last 8 years!
Sonny is doing a magnificent job here, isn't he? W could hardly be beat!
Newt, Boehner, Limbaugh, O'Reilly Hannidle, and that bunch of "libertarians," are excellent to watch!

laura2007
laura2007's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2007
joining the fight

I heard today that MS along with three other states joined in. The LT. Governor of South Carolina is calling for a constitutional convention to draft an amendment that would make it unlawful for Congress to force you to purchase a good or service. I would love to see a convention take place. I heard there were about 35-37 states that were unhappy about the bill. I'm not sure how many of those have Republican legislations but that is something we need to shoot for (metaphorically speaking, liberals, not actual shooting) this November.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
morgan

Because it is a waste of time and money. It won't get anywhere, suing congress and the President

It is a farce to impress ignorant red-nek voters.

Forcing the purchase of affordable health insurance makes more sense than a stupid fishing license!

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
And therein is the rub

"Forcing the purchase of affordable health insurance makes more sense than a stupid fishing license!"

that statement lays bare the complete lack of understanding of the federalistic structure of our government and the dictates of the 10th amendment. Thank you for highlighting the reason for the downfall of our constitutional republic.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Health Care for those currently uninsured

Check today's AJC Opinion Sect for an excellent article on how the new law will further contribute to the Physician shortgage, particularly those who are engaged in Primary Care. And Georgia, with its rising population and shrinking Doctor numbers, will be one of the States most affected.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Doctor shortage

You mean that there aren't enough MD's just laying around doing nothing that there might be a shortage if 30million are suddenly insured and now want to see a DR. so they can get their hands on all the pills being advertised on TV? NO WAY!

I was always amazed how the media and even the Repubs didn't pound on this one point over and over during the HC debate.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
NUK

That is about it. They do a lot of work unnecessarily.
At least you know now that they aren't being treated, don't you?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Hey Gym.. Call centers and many doctors are reporting

people calling in or walking in wanting to sign up for their FREE healthcare.

A spokesperson for a major insurance call center representing 138 different companies stated today that they are swamped with calls wanting to know how to sign up "For that Obamacare program" When advised that there is no such program and nothing is free they became irate.

The Entitlement class speaks again.. I want my FREE stuff.. Gimme...

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
GYM

We have a "glut" of medical doctors!
There has been so much work for them that they have all specialized.

Believe me, if there is money to be made the rear-end specialists, and others
(dermos, for instance) who will be glad to check you out.

We get sick on weekend days (2 out of 7 days a week) and holidays and unless no emergency room is open, you don't see one for 5-6 hours at best. There is only 2 back there! Some may have to take Tues-Wed off instead of Sat-Sun.

Actually the $300-400 thousand dollars per year anesthesiologists could actually do physicals between operations. Or even do triage.

Anyway, primary care doctors will have their allowed fees raised by Medicare, and thus other insurance, soon.

Try considering alternatives to problems for a change.

Try paying for medical school and guaranteeing $200,000 per year for five years (any shortage of earning to be paid by Insurance companies), and see how many qualified takers there are. Also, we will soon be flooded with PAs and NPs. Mostly for triage, prescription organization, evaluation, and making the doctor's life easy.

Change is good.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
There is those facts again Bonkers

"The number of U.S. medical school students going into primary care has dropped 51.8% since 1997, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

Considering it takes 10 to 11 years to educate a doctor, the drying up of the pipeline is a big concern to health-care experts. The AAFP is predicting a shortage of 40,000 family physicians in 2020, when the demand is expected to spike. The U.S. health care system has about 100,000 family physicians and will need 139,531 in 10 years. The current environment is attracting only half the number needed to meet the demand." USAToday

Do you want to tell us how you voted again?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Lindsey

NO LOOSE FACTS BY ME!

I jut told you earlier many ways the Primary Care Doctors will be
replenished.

Internal medicine doctors are filling in right now! Many offices now have Nurse Practitioners with RN, MS, and PhD degrees. Also DA, doctor's assistants.

The AAFP simply doesn't want to loose any dues paying members!

Please don't believe everything you read any more! Do you really think that our health program will be held up a minute due to a "shortage" of Family Practitioners---as a title? NO.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Yeah.. Yeah.. Brain Surgeons fixing hang nails and hemorrhoids

I saw your silly post on that.. Idiotic..

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Obama Care & Nixon Care & TR Care

Ya'll enjoy each other's company. It's a done deal. What most every Prezbo since that anti-korp, trust buster Teddy-R wanted, incl. that most socialist anti-commie Nixon proposed, is all done. On to Single Payer & Universal Coverage. Gotta love all the rhetoric, "You can't make me buy what's good for me; so that I can't make you pay my hopital bill when I do go to the hospital & I can't pay." I drive a pick'um-up because I don't have to wear a seatbelt. You can't make me! I must be a Teabagger in de-Nile, which is not a river in Egypt.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bonko & Doc Glut

Read the AJC article and provide some factual rebuttal and maybe you'll have some credibility--until you can do that, you've got zip. Oh and BTW, since you select the "rear-end specialists" for special mention, I'm just guessing you have lots of personal experience with them in what has obviously been a failing attempt to keep your head exposed to the exterior.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
GYM

"Read the AJC article," I did!
Articles serve one purpose generally: someone makes a living writing them, and some one gets something from it!

There is no scarcity of doctors! We need reorganization there also.
They are now bundling themselves into large corporations (I saw 43 Cardiologists listed as working for one corporation, just on south side)who are managed by business consultants---one patient at a time!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Wedge - fishing

Some points on this hollow argument.

A fishing license is a tax, HC is a service.

You might be able to challenge a fishing license tax if every citizen was force to fish.

Recent Comments