What CAN'T the federal government require you to purchase?

[SpidermanTuba]

Congress has no rules according to you.

Before we move on, I'd like you to supply a direct quotation and link to me stating that.

 

[Bern80]

Incidentally, where in the Constitution does it say the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force?

he is Commander in Cheif of the armed forced, which includes the air force dumbass. Then again I'm trying to explain something logically to someone who thinks Congress has the power to make people do whatever they want as long as they collect taxes for non-conmpliance.

 

[Bern80]

Congress has no rules according to you.

Before we move on, I'd like you to supply a direct quotation and link to me stating that.

If they wanted to impose an income tax on people who don't own Prius's they could.

Again the problem is you haven't thought about the real world ramifications of your position. The fact is that is the reality of them.

Thanks for bringin us full circle. Let's try this again.

What CAN'T government require you to do?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

he is Commander in Cheif of the armed forces

That's not what it says in the Constitution.

Says

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..."

Nothing about an air force and nothing about all armed forces in general. Would seem that requiring Air Force members to salute the President is therefore not Constitutional, as he isn't Constitutionally a superior military officer to them, he is merely their civilian boss.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What CAN'T government require you to do?

Anything for which it lacks constitutional authority.

For instance, it can levy an income tax on people for not having health insurance. But it can't put them in jail for not having it.

 

[Bern80]

What CAN'T government require you to do?

Anything for which it lacks constitutional authority.

For instance, it can levy an income tax on people for not having health insurance. But it can't put them in jail for not having it.

Problem is that isn't how the 16th ammendment works. Again your interpretation of it is circular logic.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What CAN'T government require you to do?

Anything for which it lacks constitutional authority.

For instance, it can levy an income tax on people for not having health insurance. But it can't put them in jail for not having it.

Problem is that isn't how the 16th ammendment works. Again your interpretation of it is circular logic.

Dude, how would you know? You don't know how it works.

 

[Bern80]

Anything for which it lacks constitutional authority.

For instance, it can levy an income tax on people for not having health insurance. But it can't put them in jail for not having it.

Problem is that isn't how the 16th ammendment works. Again your interpretation of it is circular logic.

Dude, how would you know? You don't know how it works.

I know there is nothing in the constitution that grants the federal government the power to require citizens to purchase anything.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Problem is that isn't how the 16th ammendment works. Again your interpretation of it is circular logic.

Dude, how would you know? You don't know how it works.

I know there is nothing in the constitution that grants the federal government the power to require citizens to purchase anything.

Nor is there anything in the health care bill. You are completely free to not purchase healthcare and pay the tax instead.

 

[Bern80]

Dude, how would you know? You don't know how it works.

I know there is nothing in the constitution that grants the federal government the power to require citizens to purchase anything.

Nor is there anything in the health care bill. You are completely free to not purchase healthcare and pay the tax instead.

Yet again you need to look at the wider ramifications of your ridiculous position. If the above is true, so is the following.

You have essentially stated the the reason it is legal to incarcerate people for murder is BECAUSE we can put them in jail for it.

 

[George Costanza]

You know, for years, all I have been hearing from conservatives is - "I've got my health insurance which I work hard to pay for. If others aren't willing to work for it also, too bad for them."

Now, all I am hearing from conservatives is: "I'm being forced to buy health insurance. Unconstitutional!"

Which is it, cons? Ya got it or doncha?

I don't see how the statements "I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's health insurance" and "I shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance" contradict each other.

They don't. However, if the conservative mantra has always been: "I've got my health insurance, I don't want to pay for others' health insurance," one can assume that conservatives HAVE health insurance, generally speaking.

If that's true (that most conservatives have health insurance), then you wouldn't expect them to be upset about a new plan that requires people to buy health insurance. Since they already have it, the new requirement will not affect them.

Whether or not it is true that, generally, most conservatives have health insurance, is another issue. I am assuming this to be true for the sake of argument on this point.

 

[Bern80]

You know, for years, all I have been hearing from conservatives is - "I've got my health insurance which I work hard to pay for. If others aren't willing to work for it also, too bad for them."

Now, all I am hearing from conservatives is: "I'm being forced to buy health insurance. Unconstitutional!"

Which is it, cons? Ya got it or doncha?

I don't see how the statements "I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's health insurance" and "I shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance" contradict each other.

They don't. However, if the conservative mantra has always been: "I've got my health insurance, I don't want to pay for others' health insurance," one can assume that conservatives HAVE health insurance, generally speaking.

If that's true (that most conservatives have health insurance), then you wouldn't expect them to be upset about a new plan that requires people to buy health insurance. Since they already have it, the new requirement will not affect them.

Whether or not it is true that, generally, most conservatives have health insurance, is another issue. I am assuming this to be true for the sake of argument on this point.

Isn't that basically the old, 'if it doesn't affect me I don't care' argument? I believe the difference is principle. A truly foreign concept to the avg. lib.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, for your consideration: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Nothing in that Amendment prevents the bill from being enacted as passed.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, for your consideration: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Nothing in that Amendment prevents the bill from being enacted as passed.

The issue of the mandate falls under the enumerated powers of the legislature under article I. section 8. The down and dirty in it simply is if it isn't in there the federal legislature can't do it. Since this bill makes whether or not government can actually collect this tax dependent on violation of mandate you must first make the argument that the mandate is in of itself constitutional regardless of the penalty you may want to impose for it's violation. Government can indeed collect tax on income, but what is NOT in Article 1 Section 8 is grant of power to congress allowing them to make people do whatever they want. In laymans terms this bill makes B (collecting a tax on income) dependant on A (violation of mandate) Therefore you have to show that A is constitutional in of itself.

You two bright bulbs are essentially arguing that the constitutionality of A is dependent on whether the consequence (B) is constitutional. You would have to admit that is awfully convenient. I doubt you would agree to some more ludicrous yet analogous scenarios (well you may out of shear stuborness). Let me give you some other equivalents that would be equally legal under your warped position.

Government could require you to purchase a home because they can collect property tax.

Government could require you to purchase a car because they can collect license fees.

Do you understand that under your position government could not only not supply unemployment benefits, they could actually REQUIRE you to be employed because they can collect income tax and tax you for not working?

 

[Sinclair99]

Why to be so dependent on the government why can't you go for your health insurance...

 

[Bern80]

Why to be so dependent on the government why can't you go for your health insurance...

Because we have reached a shift in this country where people seem to think they are entitled to a lot, but responsible for very little.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You have essentially stated the the reason it is legal to incarcerate people for murder is BECAUSE we can put them in jail for it.

No, the reason its legal to incarcerate people for murder is our legislative bodies have passed laws stating it is legal to incarcerate people for murder.

 

[Bern80]

You have essentially stated the the reason it is legal to incarcerate people for murder is BECAUSE we can put them in jail for it.

No, the reason its legal to incarcerate people for murder is our legislative bodies have passed laws stating it is legal to incarcerate people for murder.

I'm not sure how much more I can dumb this down for you spidey.

In your world it would mean that for the act of murder to be illegal the penalty for it must be constitutional. The fact that you have taken the life of someone else would have no bearing on the legality of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, your apples and oranges comparison have fallen apart, the wheels have come off your logic cart, your airplane of common sense has crashed.

Please reframe your argument sensibly.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, your apples and oranges comparison have fallen apart, the wheels have come off your logic cart, your airplane of common sense has crashed.

Please reframe your argument sensibly.

I will give you some credit in saying as of yet you have not made the following argument. Spidey has however. His argument is this:

A government mandate that everyone must purchase healthcare is constitutional. He has stated the reason government can require people to purchase private insurance, and thus anything else it wants, is because government has been granted the authority to tax income. With me so far?

I asked him if instead of taxing people for not buying insurance, if they simply made it illegal and prosecutable to not buy insurance, would it be constitutional? To this he said no, in that case a government mandate requiring the purchase of insurance would not be constitutional. Still with me?

Now that last one is bit confusing. I ask myself what variable changed to make the mandate constitutional on one hand but not the other according to spidey? The answer is the penalty for non-compliance. So his position in general terms is this:

Whether X is constitutional ('X' being whatever law or mandate government might care to dream up) is dependent SOLELY on whether Y (the penalty of non-compliance of X) is constitutional.

That is what lead to the original question of the thread. If the only requirement for constitutionality of a piece of legislation is that the penalty for non-compliance be constitutional well there is pretty much nothing that government couldn't make constitutional.

And that's just for starters. There are a few other problems with Spidey's position. Such as somehow throwing people in jail for non compliance of the mandate would make the mandate unconstitutional. How exactly? Government has the authority to put people in jail for violating the law don't they?

Next you have the issue of the interpretation of the 16th amendment can it really be interpreted so broadly that it grants government the authority to tax for non-compliance of something else? I don't think so. I would contend again that any law must be constitutional on it's own merit, The argument alone is simply asanine. Government can make you do something because they can tax you for not doing it? Well isn't that fucking convenient. OF COURSE THEY CAN'T. What government can make you do must be constitutional, period. No 'ands', 'buts' or 'IFs'.