I’m not a lawyer, or an expert on the Constitution, though I sometimes play one on TV.
But I can read, and I’ll agree with my friends on the left that the federal government has a broad power to tax. I wish the 16th Amendment had never been ratified, but its language gives the federal government a green light to rape and pillage.
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.
That being said, the power to tax is not the same as the power to spend. And at the risk of sounding old fashioned, my big objection to the Obamacare decision is that health care is not listed as one of the federal government’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution.
Sadly, that horse got out of the barn many decades ago, culminating in a horrible 1942 Supreme Court decision that said a man couldn’t grow crops on his own land to feed his own animals for consumption by his own family.
But let’s look at the bright side. Even though the Obamacare case was decided incorrectly, at least the judiciary is beginning to reconsider these issues, thanks in large part to the work of the Cato Institute’s legal scholars and adjunct legal scholars.
P.S. While the federal government has a broad power to tax, I should add that this doesn’t – or at least shouldn’t – vitiate other provisions of the Constitution. This is why it is so disappointing that we’ve seen the erosion of key civil liberties such as the presumption of innocence and the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
P.P.S. This Michael Ramirez cartoon about Obamacare and the Constitution is amusing, though that’s not much solace given what happened. And here’s another one of his cartoons, this one on the broader theme of Obama vs. the Founding Fathers.
P.P.S. Speaking of cartoons, this one seems especially appropriate today.
If you like that one, you can see another Breen cartoon here.
International Liberty 
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] a constitutional republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] My main objection to government employees is that they work for bureaucracies that should not exist (especially the ones in Washington). […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] Sadly, the Supreme Court sometimes doesn’t fulfill its job of keeping government within the Constitution. Especially with regard to enumerated powers. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutional. […]
[…] wretched internal revenue code passes constitutional muster (though having the authority to tax is not the same as the authority to […]
[…] any event, the federal government’s broad power to tax does not translate into a broad power to spend. At least if we care about the […]
[…] provisions designed to protect economic liberty. It doesn’t even mention my favorite part, Article 1, Section 8, which lists the few and limited powers of the central […]
[…] those “larger problems” are the ones enumerated in Article 1, Section […]
[…] the Supreme Court no longer protects our economic liberties (John Roberts providing the most recent example), but it was nice while it […]
[…] of Leviathan. And it’s a failure of the individual Senators and Representatives for not upholding the Constitution and not doing what’s right for the […]
[…] a timid intermediate step, with the real goal being a tiny federal government — like the Founding Fathers envisioned — that can be financed without any broad-based […]
[…] flat tax as a timid intermediate step, with the real goal being a tiny federal government (like the Founding Fathers envisioned) that can be financed without any broad-based […]
[…] we can somehow restore the kind of limited government envisioned by America’s Founders, the dream of no income tax could become a reality once […]
[…] GOPers were serious about this part of the platform, this would put them on record to abolish 90 percent of the federal […]
[…] P.S. Yes, the 16th Amendment (sadly) gave Congress broad powers to tax, but that’s not the same as giving the federal government broad powers to spend. […]
[…] also compares favorably with other developed nations, even though we’ve allowed Washington to grab powers that more properly belong at the state level (or in the private […]
[…] since the 1930s, for instance, they’ve completely failed to limit the federal government to the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, of the […]
[…] the 1930s, for instance, they’ve completely failed to limit the federal government to the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, of the […]
[…] This is because I’m old fashioned and I actually think the Founding Fathers weren’t joking when they granted only a few enumerated powers to the federal government. […]
[…] would appoint some ideologue who will disregard the Second Amendment (in the same way Justices routinely disregard Article I, Section VIII, and other sections of the […]
[…] Advocates of smaller government have long objected to this arrangement for the simple reason that neither agriculture subsidies nor food subsidies are proper functions of the federal government…… […]
[…] Advocates of smaller government have long objected to this arrangement for the simple reason that neither agriculture subsidies nor food subsidies are proper functions of the federal government. […]
[…] say that too loud. Given the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision, there’s apparently no limit to the federal government’s power to control our behavior through the tax code, so I’d hate to give politicians any more crazy […]
[…] there are any vacancies on the Supreme Court, they will be filled by doctrinaire leftists. So the great libertarian conspiracy to restore constitutional constraints on the federal government will be temporarily […]
[…] work, why is smoking any business of the federal government? It’s certainly not one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section […]
[…] This is because I’m old fashioned and I actually think the Founding Fathers weren’t joking when they granted only a few enumerated powers to the federal government. […]
[…] This is because I’m old fashioned and I actually think the Founding Fathers weren’t joking when they granted only a few enumerated powers to the federal government. […]
[…] posted five good Obamacare cartoons last week (and included two others in this post and this post), and was planning on stopping […]
[…] why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can […]
[…] the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section […]
[…] would appoint some ideologue who will disregard the Second Amendment (in the same way Justices routinely disregard Article I, Section VIII, and other sections of the […]
[…] It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing about housing in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution. For those of us who have old-fashioned values about playing by the rules, that means much of what takes place in Washington – including housing handouts – is unconstitutiona…. […]
[…] The legal argument for restoring the Constitution’s restraints on federal power has been driven by the intellectual work of Cato Institute scholars and adjunct scholars. […]
[…] why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can […]
[…] there are any vacancies on the Supreme Court, they will be filled by doctrinaire leftists. So the great libertarian conspiracy to restore constitutional constraints on the federal government will be temporarily […]
[…] attack against Obama’s faux stimulus when others were sitting on their hands. And it was Cato scholars who helped rejuvenate the constitutional case for limited […]
[…] attack against Obama’s faux stimulus when others were sitting on their hands. And it was Cato scholars who helped rejuvenate the constitutional case for limited […]
[…] be sure, not all legislation is bad. Now that the Supreme Court has failed in its job, Congress would have to enact a law to repeal Obamacare. Laws also would need to be changed to […]
[…] Narrated by Julie Borowski from FreedomWorks, the video explains that third-party payer has been a growing problem for decades and that it would have required fixing even if the Supreme Court hadn’t botched the Obamacare decision. […]
[…] there are any vacancies on the Supreme Court, they will be filled by doctrinaire leftists. So the great libertarian conspiracy to restore constitutional constraints on the federal government will be temporarily […]
[…] I’ve also acknowledged that Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution grants specific powers to the federal […]
[…] Narrated by Julie Borowski from FreedomWorks, the video explains that third-party payer has been a growing problem for decades and that it would have required fixing even if the Supreme Court hadn’t botched the Obamacare decision. […]
[…] the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section […]
[…] why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can […]
[…] I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can […]
[…] the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section […]
[…] the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section […]
[…] be sure, not all legislation is bad. Now that the Supreme Court has failed in its job, Congress would have to enact a law to repeal Obamacare. Laws also would need to be changed to […]
[…] be sure, not all legislation is bad. Now that the Supreme Court has failed in its job, Congress would have to enact a law to repeal Obamacare. Laws also would need to be changed to […]
[…] Sadly, the Supreme Court decided about 70 years ago to no longer uphold that part of the Constitution (sounds familiar, huh?). […]
[…] already thrown in my two cents on yesterday’s disappointing decision, and I was planning on ignoring the issue for a few days because I’m so irked by the […]
[…] Narrated by Julie Borowski from FreedomWorks, the video explains that third-party payer has been a growing problem for decades and that it would have required fixing even if the Supreme Court hadn’t botched the Obamacare decision. […]
[…] Narrated by Julie Borowski from FreedomWorks, the video explains that third-party payer has been a growing problem for decades and that it would have required fixing even if the Supreme Court hadn’t botched the Obamacare decision. […]
[…] You can decide who to believe. Just keep in mind that my 2010 election predictions were very accurate and Intrade.com was wrong on the Obamacare Supreme Court decision. […]
[…] posted five good Obamacare cartoons last week (and included two others in this post and this post), and was planning on stopping […]
[…] Epstein opined last Friday in the New York Times about the Obamacare decision and explained (as I noted last week as well) that the power to tax does not create a power to spend. By giving Congress independent powers over […]
[…] Epstein opined last Friday in the New York Times about the Obamacare decision and explained (as I noted last week as well) that the power to tax does not create a power to spend. By giving Congress independent powers over […]
[…] already thrown in my two cents on yesterday’s disappointing decision, and I was planning on ignoring the issue for a few days because I’m so irked by the […]
[…] already thrown in my two cents on yesterday’s disappointing decision, and I was planning on ignoring the issue for a few days because I’m so irked by the […]
[…] read my former Cato Institute colleague Dan Mitchell’s reaction to the ruling for Obamacare-as-tax-policy […]
The point of no return passed a few years ago.
Now the movie of decline is playing and will continue to play according to script. The slope of decline is still small but the direction irreversible, and the scary periods of uncontrollable slide are yet to come.
Virtually all European people followed the same path to their decline — only now finally becoming symptomatic — alas not soon enough for Americans to learn the lesson and avoid same mistake. But, after all, why would anyone think that Americans would avoid same fate forever. It does not take many years of complacency dropping the famous “eternal vigilance” to get sucked into the vortex of decline. The tipping point passed some time ago for America. In retrospect, the complacency years were probably the smug years when America was left the only superpower and thought it could squander its success going down the statist welfare state path while at the same time assume the role of world police. The year 2008 sealed the fate and demonstrated entry into the vicious cycle, as Americans elected the even more collectivist Obama to correct Bush’s mistakes.
Now just enjoy a few short years of decline. The beginning of decline can actually be somewhat fun while we vote to storm the barn and feast on the seeds of future crops. So just enjoy, but make sure to have an exit strategy, especially for your children.
Now as the productive get a little more punished and the complacent get a little more insulated from the consequences of mediocrity, economic output will decline, our prosperity will start converging towards the world average, prompting us to rush to the polls to vote ourselves a few more “urgently needed government care packages” to ease our pain. Packages paid by Paul Krugman perpetual collectivist machines, or the “greedy” who now will leave their families every morning with renewed enthusiasm and creativity to go make America more competitive, by working for even more unknowns a few streets away, a few neighborhoods away, a few cities away, a few states away.
The western world has some interesting days ahead, and it will be a long way down.
As the less than one billion lucky lemmings of the western world adopt the failed collectivism of the once undeveloped world, while three billion emerging competitors are moving in the opposite direction, reality will override everything, politics, voters, polls, free lunches, hippie dreams of top prosperity with less effort and collectively organized and imposed exceptionalism.
The only question remains whether the decline will be smooth or whether pressure will be contained by gimmicks only to explode in one or a few turbulent events. The latter scenario seems more likely to me for now.
Anyway, don’t be too depressed. If you have played your cards right during America’s more vibrant pre- HopNChange free-lunch days of naiveté, you will now join scores of French, barely rich people, leisurely enjoying the sun in the Caribbean. The fact that HopNChangers will be left behind to work and pay for your ObamaCare — for a few years, while the party lasts that is — will only accelerate your retreat into do-nothing days of tropical liberation. You will enjoy something that HopNChangers will never get the chance to, as the Paul Krugman free-lunches they voted for start bearing fruits.
One word of caution. In more smug days, Americans voted for a so far little noticed aberration to traditional American freedom: Totalitarian worldwide taxation and punitive exit taxes. Pay attention to that, as this closing of the safety valves will play heavily into the waning days of American empire, and will make for an even more turbulent era of final decline. Still some ways to go, but not nearly as long as you think…
[…] Yes, the Federal Government Has a Broad Power to Tax, but that’s Different from Having a Green Lig…. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes”
How does this apply to taxing a choice of buying medical insurance, which is independent of income?
Why can’t the government now enact the “Tax Overall”: Each citizen or resident of the US shall be liable for a tax each year equal to his total income, unless he shall promptly do each and every thing that the Federal Government requires him to do. This is merely a tax, for which the government grants a means for reduction, should the citizen or resident wish to avail himself of the exemption.
We are now declared serfs under a totalitarian government. It only remains for our government to explore the many areas which it wants to enforce compliance.
Some argue that the SC merely ruled that a political decision be decided by politics rather than law.
This is actually a disaster. Deciding “politics by politics” assigns zero relevance to law. People respect “the law” and look to SC decisions for a learned opinion of what is allowed to our government from the start. Now, everything is allowed.
We are left with the ability to elect the dictators over us, who will have total power until we elect the next dictators. This will go on while elections are permitted.
Under an all-powerful state you are as secure as the political faction you belong to. Everything is politics without law. The Supreme Court has removed itself from relevence, and politics is now everything. It seems that the Constitution limits government, except in any area which is examined by the SC.
The “Do the Right Thing” Bill
=========
Future news:
“Do The Right Thing” will give us open, consistent, dynamic government. It grants President Michelle Obama (now in her 3rd term in office) all principles and powers to consider all matters and then “Do the right thing”. The Congress retains the important function of advising on the President’s actions should she desire this.
The Congress is now free to do what it does best, arrange for hospital admissions, allocate liquor licenses, and grant carbohydrate waivers to restaurants.
=========
What about Medicare and Medicaid? don’t they constitute a precedent in the federal government’s power to spend on and regulate health care?
Right you are Dan, here’s my take, J.C. http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/did-justice-roberts-hand-romney-a-win-in-november-by-upholding-obama-care-as-a-tax/ Cross linking your article on my site. Thanks for the great read, J.C.
[…] “Yes, the Federal Government Has a Broad Power to Tax, but that’s Different from Having a Green Lig…” […]
The decision is Contitutionally correct, in my view. What the Court did, however, was, in essence, potentially replace a private healthcare system – and private health insurers – with a governement one. The American people will realize this and Obama’s “victory” will erode quickly as the tax implications on each American becomes clear. After all, why buy health coverage (potentially as much as $20,000 for a family of four) from a private insurer when the Federal Govt will impose a tax – perhaps less but most assuredly eventually to extend to ALL taxpayers regardless of whether they have purchased health insurance or not (recall how muchDemocrats love “fairness”)? The battle field is now where is should be: no the courts but the electorate.