so let's talk filibusters for a moment

For those that are lazy I bolded my questions but I hope you read my post.

So first off there have been more filibusters this year than any other time in history. Essentially this means that people people in the government have tried to make government come to a screeching hault. Take a look at this picture for some perspective.

its a bit blurry but you get the idea. Anyways Democrats certainly consider this abusive of the filibuster. In fact back in 2004 Republicans said Democrat's were abusing the filibuster because they blocked 10 of 229 judicial nominees and they even considered changing how the filibuster works.

Today democrats are considering the same thing (look at my first link).

So do you think they should change the filibuster so that isn't quite as effective thus making it so the minority is not in effect the majority? Personally I am conflicted on the idea. On one hand it would mean our goverment could actually get things done, but on the other hand democrats will be the minority again at some point in time, and thus have nothing to use in case a bill that is actually bad is in the works of getting passed.

Also do you think that the usage of the filibuster is currently being abused? Do you consider it to have been abused in the past?

No more used and abused than any other time. Politics are a dirty game no matter what "side" you're on. If only they'd realise we want elected officials that are willing to work with each other for the welfare of the people and not a bunch of squabbling schoolgirls.

No more used and abused than any other time. Politics are a dirty game no matter what "side" you're on. If only they'd realise we want elected officials that are willing to work with each other for the welfare of the people and not a bunch of squabbling schoolgirls.

MystikFollower

It protects the minority party (and theirsupporters opinions ) from being steam rolled over by the majority.

It was built into the constitution for a reason.

I'm just going to keep talking endlessly about random things so that you can never reach a conclusion about the filibuster. :Dchessmaster1989

If your going to talk about fillibusters then this is going to be a very long boring thread lol.Kurushio

It protects the minority party (and theirsupporters opinions ) from being steam rolled over by the majority.

It was built into the constitution for a reason.

dercoo

I'm just going to keep talking endlessly about random things so that you can never reach a conclusion about the filibuster. :Dchessmaster1989

...

I suppose I'm opening myself up to all sorts of snide comments about a double standard here, but my personal preference would be this. When a call for an end of debate first is made, the vote requirement to end a filibuster is 60 votes. (As it is presently.) At that point, if 60 votes cannot be mustered, then some specified amount of time would need to pass (two weeks?) before another call to end debate could be issued. Essentially, if 60 Senators don't agree that debate should be ended, then the debate goes on for a minimum of two more weeks. Now then, at the end of those two weeks, the call to end debate could be issued again. At that point, the requirement to end debate is less than 60 votes. Maybe 57. If 57 votes can't be gathered, then debate continues for another two weeks. But there should be a limit. Maybe 54 votes or something like that. And that's the cap. If legislation can't secure 54 votes, then it can be blocked. This secures some protections for the minority, but doesn't thwart the principle of majority rule excessively.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I suppose I'm opening myself up to all sorts of snide comments about a double standard here, but my personal preference would be this. When a call for an end of debate first is made, the vote requirement to end a filibuster is 60 votes. (As it is presently.) At that point, if 60 votes cannot be mustered, then some specified amount of time would need to pass (two weeks?) before another call to end debate could be issued. Essentially, if 60 Senators don't agree that debate should be ended, then the debate goes on for a minimum of two more weeks. Now then, at the end of those two weeks, the call to end debate could be issued again. At that point, the requirement to end debate is less than 60 votes. Maybe 57. If 57 votes can't be gathered, then debate continues for another two weeks. But there should be a limit. Maybe 54 votes or something like that. And that's the cap. If legislation can't secure 54 votes, then it can be blocked. This secures some protections for the minority, but doesn't thwart the principle of majority rule excessively.mattbbpl

Yep. The Republicans have certainly used the filibuster to its fullest potential. As I tend to agree with the Republicans more so than the Democrats, I think that this is good thing.

We need the filibuster more today than ever before. The Democrats are proposing legislation that would require every American citizen to purchase a service from a a corporation. This offense to our basic civil liberties must not come to pass. Never before in history has the federal government required that individual citizens purchase products from corporations. To do so now opens up a Pandora's box that can only be closed through violent and bloody revolution. If the federal government can force you, at gunpoint, to buy health insurance in order to help the economy, then government can force you to purchase a new car ever year in order to "help the economy". In fact, at the point at which government can positively dictate to this nation's citizens on what services or products they must spend their money, the citizens have effectively become slaves to a totalitarian system. Think about it. If government can force you to buy what it wants you to buy, then government can force you to spend your money until you completely run out and have no money left to buy the things that you wish to purchase. At that point, each and every one of us would become a slave in the sense that we would work for money but would have no say in how that money benefits us. Instead the money we earn would be spent on our behalf, "for our own good".

Oh, and before anyone gets the idea of comparing this to auto insurance, I'll go ahead and nip that right in the bud. No on is forced to purchase auto insurance. My grandmother has never purchased auto insurance in her entire life and has never run afoul of the law because of it. She made the choice to not drive an automobile on public roads. You see, that is the key difference. A person can still choose to divest themselves of a car and avoid purchasing insurance. Another huge difference is that auto insurance mandates to drivers are issued by the states instead of the federal government.

Save our Constitution. Save our Republic.

Yep. The Republicans have certainly used the filibuster to its fullest potential. As I tend to agree with the Republicans more so than the Democrats, I think that this is good thing.

coolbeans90

its a bit blurry but you get the idea. Anyways Democrats certainly consider this abusive of the filibuster. In fact back in 2004 Republicans said Democrat's were abusing the filibuster because they blocked 10 of 229 judicial nominees and they even considered changing how the filibuster works.

Serraph105

lol, are you really surprised? The Republicans are nothing if not hypocritical and contradictory.

I think that the filibuster in its current form is unconstitutional and that it has turned the U.S. Senate into a severely dysfunctional institution.-Sun_Tzu-

Could you cite the article of the Constitution of which the the filibuster is in conflict to?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I think that the filibuster in its current form is unconstitutional and that it has turned the U.S. Senate into a severely dysfunctional institution.dkrustyklown

Could you cite the article of the Constitution of which the the filibuster is in conflict to?

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I think that the filibuster in its current form is unconstitutional and that it has turned the U.S. Senate into a severely dysfunctional institution.-Sun_Tzu-

Could you cite the article of the Constitution of which the the filibuster is in conflict to?

That is a vastly specious extrapolation that demonstrates a clear lack of constitutional understanding.

It reads: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Vice President can only vote to break tie vote tallies. That is the only possible situation under which a Vice President can vote in the Senate. A 60/40 split is not a tie vote, and therefore the Vice President is not disenfranchised in any way, since he wouldn't be able to vote on such a split, anyways. Nothing in that clause indicates that the filibuster is unconstitutional. 160 years without constitutional challenge further refutes your position.

Try again.

This is why Americas economyis going down there making redonkulous choices.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

Could you cite the article of the Constitution of which the the filibuster is in conflict to?

dkrustyklown

That is a vastly specious extrapolation that demonstrates a clear lack of constitutional understanding.

It reads: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Vice President can only vote to break tie vote tallies. That is the only possible situation under which a Vice President can vote in the Senate. A 60/40 split is not a tie vote, and therefore the Vice President is not disenfranchised in any way, since he wouldn't be able to vote on such a split, anyways. Nothing in that clause indicates that the filibuster is unconstitutional. 160 years without constitutional challenge further refutes your position.

Try again.

We need the filibuster more today than ever before. The Democrats are proposing legislation that would require every American citizen to purchase a service from a a corporation. This offense to our basic civil liberties must not come to pass. Never before in history has the federal government required that individual citizens purchase products from corporations. To do so now opens up a Pandora's box that can only be closed through violent and bloody revolution. If the federal government can force you, at gunpoint, to buy health insurance in order to help the economy, then government can force you to purchase a new car ever year in order to "help the economy". In fact, at the point at which government can positively dictate to this nation's citizens on what services or products they must spend their money, the citizens have effectively become slaves to a totalitarian system. Think about it. If government can force you to buy what it wants you to buy, then government can force you to spend your money until you completely run out and have no money left to buy the things that you wish to purchase. At that point, each and every one of us would become a slave in the sense that we would work for money but would have no say in how that money benefits us. Instead the money we earn would be spent on our behalf, "for our own good".

Oh, and before anyone gets the idea of comparing this to auto insurance, I'll go ahead and nip that right in the bud. No on is forced to purchase auto insurance. My grandmother has never purchased auto insurance in her entire life and has never run afoul of the law because of it. She made the choice to not drive an automobile on public roads. You see, that is the key difference. A person can still choose to divest themselves of a car and avoid purchasing insurance. Another huge difference is that auto insurance mandates to drivers are issued by the states instead of the federal government.

Save our Constitution. Save our Republic.

dkrustyklown

.. Yeah like the fact by law you have to purchase car insurance to own a car?

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

We need the filibuster more today than ever before. The Democrats are proposing legislation that would require every American citizen to purchase a service from a a corporation. This offense to our basic civil liberties must not come to pass. Never before in history has the federal government required that individual citizens purchase products from corporations. To do so now opens up a Pandora's box that can only be closed through violent and bloody revolution. If the federal government can force you, at gunpoint, to buy health insurance in order to help the economy, then government can force you to purchase a new car ever year in order to "help the economy". In fact, at the point at which government can positively dictate to this nation's citizens on what services or products they must spend their money, the citizens have effectively become slaves to a totalitarian system. Think about it. If government can force you to buy what it wants you to buy, then government can force you to spend your money until you completely run out and have no money left to buy the things that you wish to purchase. At that point, each and every one of us would become a slave in the sense that we would work for money but would have no say in how that money benefits us. Instead the money we earn would be spent on our behalf, "for our own good".

Oh, and before anyone gets the idea of comparing this to auto insurance, I'll go ahead and nip that right in the bud. No on is forced to purchase auto insurance. My grandmother has never purchased auto insurance in her entire life and has never run afoul of the law because of it. She made the choice to not drive an automobile on public roads. You see, that is the key difference. A person can still choose to divest themselves of a car and avoid purchasing insurance. Another huge difference is that auto insurance mandates to drivers are issued by the states instead of the federal government.

Save our Constitution. Save our Republic.

sSubZerOo

.. Yeah like the fact by law you have to purchase car insurance to own a car?

People can opt out of owning a car...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

We need the filibuster more today than ever before. The Democrats are proposing legislation that would require every American citizen to purchase a service from a a corporation. This offense to our basic civil liberties must not come to pass. Never before in history has the federal government required that individual citizens purchase products from corporations. To do so now opens up a Pandora's box that can only be closed through violent and bloody revolution. If the federal government can force you, at gunpoint, to buy health insurance in order to help the economy, then government can force you to purchase a new car ever year in order to "help the economy". In fact, at the point at which government can positively dictate to this nation's citizens on what services or products they must spend their money, the citizens have effectively become slaves to a totalitarian system. Think about it. If government can force you to buy what it wants you to buy, then government can force you to spend your money until you completely run out and have no money left to buy the things that you wish to purchase. At that point, each and every one of us would become a slave in the sense that we would work for money but would have no say in how that money benefits us. Instead the money we earn would be spent on our behalf, "for our own good".

Oh, and before anyone gets the idea of comparing this to auto insurance, I'll go ahead and nip that right in the bud. No on is forced to purchase auto insurance. My grandmother has never purchased auto insurance in her entire life and has never run afoul of the law because of it. She made the choice to not drive an automobile on public roads. You see, that is the key difference. A person can still choose to divest themselves of a car and avoid purchasing insurance. Another huge difference is that auto insurance mandates to drivers are issued by the states instead of the federal government.

Save our Constitution. Save our Republic.

coolbeans90

.. Yeah like the fact by law you have to purchase car insurance to own a car?

People can opt out of owning a car...

My point being is this is nothing new, and the people who actually complain about this specific point of the idea is quite ridiculous.. Some of the largest expendenitures are due to the uninsured who refuse to pay coming under a accident..

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Yeah like the fact by law you have to purchase car insurance to own a car?

sSubZerOo

People can opt out of owning a car...

My point being is this is nothing new, and the people who actually complain about this specific point of the idea is quite ridiculous.. Some of the largest expendenitures are due to the uninsured who refuse to pay coming under a accident..

Agreed that it isn't a new idea, but it's still one that I disagree with.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

its a bit blurry but you get the idea. Anyways Democrats certainly consider this abusive of the filibuster. In fact back in 2004 Republicans said Democrat's were abusing the filibuster because they blocked 10 of 229 judicial nominees and they even considered changing how the filibuster works.

F1_2004

lol, are you really surprised? The Republicans are nothing if not hypocritical and contradictory.

Well the filibuster has only been around in its current form since 1975. Moreover, the filibuster effectively eliminates the possibility of the senate being equally divided, thus by extension, the Vice President is essentially disenfranchised. -Sun_Tzu-

The filibuster has been used since the 1830's. The filibuster was weakened in 1975, bringing cloture to 3/5 instead of 2/3 vote. In its basic purpose and form, the filibuster has existed for most of the history of the United States.

Your assertion that the filibuster eliminates the possibility of the Senate being equally divided is patently false. The Senate has had plenty of tie votes which were unaffected by the filibuster. There have been 244 tie breaking votes cast by Senate Presidents in the history of our great republic. Dick Cheney cast 8 tie-breaking votes and Al Gore before him cast 4. So, as you can see, the filibuster does not, in fact, disenfranchise the Vice President. Your claim is invalid.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well the filibuster has only been around in its current form since 1975. Moreover, the filibuster effectively eliminates the possibility of the senate being equally divided, thus by extension, the Vice President is essentially disenfranchised. dkrustyklown

The filibuster has been used since the 1830's. The filibuster was weakened in 1975, bringing cloture to 3/5 instead of 2/3 vote. In its basic purpose and form, the filibuster has existed for most of the history of the United States.

Your assertion that the filibuster eliminates the possibility of the Senate being equally divided is patently false. The Senate has had plenty of tie votes which were unaffected by the filibuster. There have been 244 tie breaking votes cast by Senate Presidents in the history of our great republic. Dick Cheney cast 8 tie-breaking votes and Al Gore before him cast 4. So, as you can see, the filibuster does not, in fact, disenfranchise the Vice President. Your claim is invalid.

As for the disenfranchisement of the Vice President, forgive me for not being as clear as I should have been. Yes, the senate has been equally divided in recent years, but not on any of the big, divisive pieces of legislation. The rationale for having the Vice President being the deciding vote in case of a tie was because it was assumed that on these divisive pieces of legislation the senate will be equally divided, and the framers decided on having the Vice President being the presiding officer and were strongly opposed to having a sitting senator having that deciding vote. But the filibuster does away with all that, and gives all the Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes of the world their own personal veto pen.

It's also just very illogical, and it's not anything that the framers would have wanted. It makes no sense to require only a simple majority to constitute a quorum, but require a supermajority to prevent a minority from blocking a vote and prevent or delay the passage of legislation. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 75 that"All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority."

The filibuster was not weakened in 1975, it was merely changed. Yes, prior to 1975 a cloture vote required a 2/3's majority, but there was a real disincentive from filibustering - you had to do your best Mr. Smith impersonation on the senate floor. Now, all you have to do is say that you are filibustering. and ta dah, you are filibustering, and you can then go home, relax, and what cartoons.

As for the disenfranchisement of the Vice President, forgive me for not being as clear as I should have been. Yes, the senate has been equally divided in recent years, but not on any of the big, divisive pieces of legislation. The rationale for having the Vice President being the deciding vote in case of a tie was because it was assumed that on these divisive pieces of legislation the senate will be equally divided, and the framers decided on having the Vice President being the presiding officer and were strongly opposed to having a sitting senator having that deciding vote. But the filibuster does away with all that, and gives all the Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes of the world their own personal veto pen.

It's also just very illogical, and it's not anything that the framers would have wanted. It makes no sense to require only a simple majority to constitute a quorum, but require a supermajority to prevent a minority from blocking a vote and prevent or delay the passage of legislation. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 75 that"All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority."

-Sun_Tzu-

The likelyhood that the Senate will be equally divided on any particular issue is dependant on it's ideological and party composition, and is thus, unlikely.

As for it giving the Oympia Snowes and Scott Browns a personal veto pen. It isn't giving them, individually, a personal veto pen. It takes 40 Senators to maintain a filibuster. That's a lot of Senators to ask to stand united. These aren't trivial pieces of legilsation that they are obstructing. These are controversial laws that would fundamentally alter each and every individual's liberty to choose whether to purchase or not to purchase a product from a corporation that seeks to profit from those sales. If 40 Senators can get together to block a controversial piece of legislation that strips us of our freedom to choose our own path, then that's great. It's another safeguard against a simple legislative majority steamrolling legislation that strips us of our basic liberties and makes us slaves to any and all corporations that have lobbied congress into making the purchase of their products mandatory.

If the insurance lobbyists can get a simple majority in the Senate to approve a law requiring the purchase of their product, then I will guarantee you that there will be a miles-long line of lobbyists from other industries seeking to make the purchase of their own products mandatory. At that point, this will no longer be the America that we were born into. This will be the complete merger of corporations and government to create an entity which we will be domiinated by for a very long time. I do not like the idea of government and corporations teaming up together to squash the citizen's right to choose.

This is just the sort of thing that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech to the American people.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The filibuster was not weakened in 1975, it was merely changed. Yes, prior to 1975 a cloture vote required a 2/3's majority, but there was a real disincentive from filibustering - you had to do your best Mr. Smith impersonation on the senate floor. Now, all you have to do is say that you are filibustering. and ta dah, you are filibustering, and you can then go home, relax, and what cartoons.

As for the disenfranchisement of the Vice President, forgive me for not being as clear as I should have been. Yes, the senate has been equally divided in recent years, but not on any of the big, divisive pieces of legislation. The rationale for having the Vice President being the deciding vote in case of a tie was because it was assumed that on these divisive pieces of legislation the senate will be equally divided, and the framers decided on having the Vice President being the presiding officer and were strongly opposed to having a sitting senator having that deciding vote. But the filibuster does away with all that, and gives all the Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes of the world their own personal veto pen.

It's also just very illogical, and it's not anything that the framers would have wanted. It makes no sense to require only a simple majority to constitute a quorum, but require a supermajority to prevent a minority from blocking a vote and prevent or delay the passage of legislation. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 75 that"All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority."

dkrustyklown

The likelyhood that the sEnate will be equally divided on any particular issue is dependant on it's ideological and party composition, and is thus, unlikely.

As for it giving the Oympia Snowes and Scott Browns a personal veto pen. It isn't giving them, individually, a personal veto pen. It takes 40 Senators to maintain a filibuster. That's a lot of Senators to ask to stand united. These aren't trivial pieces of legilsation that they are obstructing. These are controversial laws that would fundamentally alter each and every individual's liberty to choose whether to purchase or not to purchase a product from a corporation that seeks to profit from those sales. If 40 Senators can get together to block a controversial piece of legislation that strips us of our freedom to choose our own path, then that's great. It's another safeguard against a simple legislative majority steamrolling legislation that strips us of our basic liberties and makes us slaves to any and all corporations that have lobbied congress into making the purchase of their products mandatory.

If the insurance lobbyists can get a simple majority in the Senate to approve a law requiring the purchase of their product, then I will guarantee you that there will be a miles-long line of lobbyists from other industries seeking to make the purchase of their own products mandatory. At that point, this will no longer be the America that we were born into. This will be the complete merger of corporations and government to create an entity which we will be domiinated by for a very long time. I do not like the idea of government and corporations teaming up together to squash the citizen's right to choose.

This is just the sort of thing that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech to the American people.

And all it takes to maintain a filibuster is party discipline. It's not as if it is some epic feat that is rarely accomplished.

You don't seem to be advocating for the filibuster in principle, you just seem to support it because it is preventing a bill you don't like from becoming law.

If 40 Senators can get together to block a controversial piece of legislation that strips us of our freedom to choose our own path, then that's great. It's another safeguard against a simple legislative majority steamrolling legislation that strips us of our basic liberties and makes us slaves to any and all corporations that have lobbied congress into making the purchase of their products mandatorydkrustyklown

It's also just very illogical, and it's not anything that the framers would have wanted. It makes no sense to require only a simple majority to constitute a quorum, but require a supermajority to prevent a minority from blocking a vote and prevent or delay the passage of legislation. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 75 that"All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority."

-Sun_Tzu-

I shall also point out that quoting Hamilton is not the best path by which go guage the overall opinions of the framers. Hamilton, in his day, was extremely controversial and very much disliked by many of his fellow framers. Many of his contemporaries considered him to be a Godless heathen. Others feared that he was a potential tyrant. Hamilton was a voice for strong centralized power, and was considered a nationalist by the Jeffersonians. Whereas some framers favored a national government that was kept from acting rapidly and thus rashly, Hamilton was a proponent of strong centralized power with the capacity for quick action. Not all of the framers were of this mindset. Some favored a national government that, while powerful, was also slow and deliberate, preventing it from acting rashly.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

It's also just very illogical, and it's not anything that the framers would have wanted. It makes no sense to require only a simple majority to constitute a quorum, but require a supermajority to prevent a minority from blocking a vote and prevent or delay the passage of legislation. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 75 that"All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority."

dkrustyklown

I shall also point out that quoting Hamilton is not the best path by which go guage the overall opinions of the framers. Hamilton, in his day, was extremely controversial and very much disliked by many of his fellow framers. Many of his contemporaries considered him to be a Godless heathen. Others feared that he was a potential tyrant. Hamilton was a voice for strong centralized power, and was considered a nationalist by the Jeffersonians. Whereas some framers favored a national government that was kept from acting rapidly and thus rashly, Hamilton was a proponent of strong centralized power with the capacity for quick action. Not all of the framers were of this mindset. Some favored a national government that, while powerful, was also slow and deliberate, preventing it from acting rashly.

You don't seem to be advocating for the filibuster in principle, you just seem to support it because it is preventing a bill you don't like from becoming law.

-Sun_Tzu-

I do, in fact support the filibuster in principle, and the current health care reform bill is but a prime example of why I support the principle. I want a government in which it takes a super majority to effect massive and sweeping changes that strip my liberties. I want a government that changes very slowly. I want a government in which a consensus is hard to reach. This is a way for individuals to be protected against the excesses of an ever-more powerful government that with its power has the potential to succumb to tyranny.

Do you really think that 51% should be able to impose slavery and bondage upon 49%?

strip my liberties. dkrustyklown

Was Hamilton controversial? Yes. Was he disliked? Certainly. But I didn't quote Hamilton's bedside diary, I quoted the Federalist Papers, which did accurately reflect, more or less, the intentions and opinions of the framers.-Sun_Tzu-

No, it only reflects the intentions and opinions of some of the framers. Keep in mind that Jefferson and Hamilton were bitter rivals. Are we to disregard Jefferson's viewpoint in favor of Hamilton's? I think not.

Jefferson: I am not a friend to a very energetic government

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]strip my liberties. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]strip my liberties. Vandalvideo

By forcing me, under penalty of imprisonment for a mandatory 5 years in federal prison, to either purchase health insurance or pay a massive fine (which is in and of itself unconstitutional because it is a tax by enumeration, which is prohibited by the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution).

If I do not purchase health insurance and I refuse to pay the fine for not purchasing health insurance, then the penalty is 5 years in federal prison.

Amongst sane people, this is called extortion.