so let's talk filibusters for a moment

*points at 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments*dkrustyklown

BTW, there you have it folks. Truer colors could not be shown. This man believes that it is within the government's power to strip each of us of our fundamental liberties in order to serve his own selfish needs.So, when you give your salute, do you do so with your palm held open or is it clenched in a fist? That is the only thing left to discover about your ideological position.dkrustyklown

Any pre-law student across the country could tell you thats the case. Even people with a passing knowledge of imminent domain know that the government has the ability to strip us of our 'fundamental rights'. Case law is littered with instances of qualifications of liberty. Merely because I state the facts does not mean I think it is the ideal scenario or that this is what I want. Woe be unto the person who thinks they know my philosophy.Vandalvideo

You are then also in agreement with the Kelo decision, right?

Let's see. You believe that it is perfectly ok for individual liberties to be discarded for the collectivist good. You don't believe that our nation was founded on the principles of individual liberty (as much as that conflicts with the reasons for the American Revolution in the first place). You believe that nothing in our constitution necessitates an individualist culture. For you justice is irrelevant and the law must be followed, no matter how unjust it might be. You support the idea of government forcing us to purchase products from private, for-profit corporations that have managed to lobby their way into the good graces of politicians, so even though you are a collectivist, you are not, however, a Marxist. According to your own statements, any and all individual rights that are supposedly guaranteed by our constitution can be discarded as long as the givornment can claim that it is convenient to do so. In your sense of right or wrong, the constitution places no practical limits on the the excercise of governmental power, since the government need only show that it has an interest in order to discard individual liberties.

Wow, I have a pamphlet for you to read that you will find gratifying. It's called, Fascism, and it was written a certain person called Benito Mussolini in 1932.

I feel compelled to point out that your reasoning and ideology are precisely why I firmly believe in and practice my 2nd amendment rights. It does not take a pre-law degree to understand justice. I have met illiterate Peruvian potato farmers that had a better grasp on the moral nuances of justice. If it comes to it, then one day we may meet on the field of battle, where patriots truly die like men.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Any pre-law student across the country could tell you thats the case. Even people with a passing knowledge of imminent domain know that the government has the ability to strip us of our 'fundamental rights'. Case law is littered with instances of qualifications of liberty. Merely because I state the facts does not mean I think it is the ideal scenario or that this is what I want. Woe be unto the person who thinks they know my philosophy.dkrustyklown

You are then also in agreement with the Kelo decision, right?

Let's see. You believe that it is perfectly ok for individual liberties to be discarded for the collectivist good. You don't believe that our nation was founded on the principles of individual liberty (as much as that conflicts with the reasons for the American Revolution in the first place). You believe that nothing in our constitution necessitates an individualist culture. For you justice is irrelevant and the law must be followed, no matter how unjust it might be. You support the idea of government forcing us to purchase products from private, for-profit corporations that have managed to lobby their way into the good graces of politicians, so even though you are a collectivist, you are not, however, a Marxist. According to your own statements, any and all individual rights that are supposedly guaranteed by our constitution can be discarded as long as the givornment can claim that it is convenient to do so. In your sense of right or wrong, the constitution places no practical limits on the the excercise of governmental power, since the government need only show that it has an interest in order to discard individual liberties.

Wow, I have a pamphlet for you to read that you will find gratifying. It's called, Fascism, and it was written a certain person called Benito Mussolini in 1932.

I feel compelled to point out that your reasoning and ideology are precisely why I firmly believe in and practice my 2nd amendment rights. It does not take a pre-law degree to understand justice. I have met illiterate Peruvian potato farmers that had a better grasp on the moral nuances of justice. If it comes to it, then one day we may meet on the field of battle, where patriots truly die like men.

He was speaking legally, not philosophically. And he is right. The government has the legal right to do a lot. That being said, I am a libertarian.

but by living in that life style ( as well as everyone going along with you) we as a people would essentially settling for mediocrity for our country.Serraph105

Mediocrity under liberty is superior to perfection under tyranny.

He was speaking legally, not philosophically. And he is right. The government has the legal right to do a lot. That being said, I am a libertarian.

coolbeans90

I disagree and I think that you are selling the Constitution short. Read with complete faith to the original intent of its authors and the authors of the amendments, the Constitution sets itself up as a supreme law. A law of laws, if you will. It forbids the abuse of governmental power that encroaches on individual liberties. It is just such abuse of governmental power that the proposed Health Care Reform bill entails.

It is unjustified seizure of property and wealth without due process, in violation of the 4th amendment.

It is precisely a violation of our religious 1st amendment rights (many religions consider insurance to be a sin...and that's a whole other can of worms).

It is precisely an example of the federal government taking on a power which is not granted to it by the Constitution, in clear violation of the 10th amendment. Only a tortured, stretched, and abused interpretation of the Commerce Clause could lead to a differing conclusion.

The fines that people who do not purchase health insurance are hit by are precisely taxation by enumeration, because it is, in fact, a tax for not doing something. Those that do not purchase health ensurance are enumerated, which is, to be put on a list. Those on the list are then taxed while those that are not on the list avoid the tax. This is clearly taxation by enumeration, and it is explicitly forbidden by the 16th Amendment.

e⋅nu⋅mer⋅ate

 /ɪˈnuməˌreɪt,ɪˈnyu-/-at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.

1.to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.

2.to ascertain the number of; count.

EDIT: I want to point out that if a personal health insurance mandate is passed, it's greatest constitutional challenge will be from the 16th amendment itself, since the way that the tax for not having health insurance is framed, it is, in fact, taxation by enumeration. The 16th amendment will provide the most direct and obvious line of consitutional challenge. No other federal taxes function in the way that is being proposed in the health reform bill, and there is a clear reason for this, since any taxes of such a nature would have a difficult time standing up to a challenge based on the 16th amendment.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

He was speaking legally, not philosophically. And he is right. The government has the legal right to do a lot. That being said, I am a libertarian.

dkrustyklown

I disagree and I think that you are selling the Constitution short. Read with complete faith to the original intent of its authors and the authors of the amendments, the Constitution sets itself up as a supreme law. A law of laws, if you will. It forbids the abuse of governmental power that encroaches on individual liberties. It is just such abuse of governmental power that the proposed Health Care Reform bill entails.

It is unjustified seizure of property and wealth without due process, in violation of the 4th amendment.

It is precisely a violation of our religious 1st amendment rights (many religions consider insurance to be a sin...and that's a whole other can of worms).

It is precisely an example of the federal government taking on a power which is not granted to it by the Constitution, in clear violation of the 10th amendment. Only a tortured, stretched, and abused interpretation of the Commerce Clause could lead to a differing conclusion.

The fines that people who do not purchase health insurance are hit by are precisely taxation by enumeration, because it is, in fact, a tax for not doing something. Those that do not purchase health ensurance are enumerated, which is, to be put on a list. Those on the list are then taxed while those that are not on the list avoid the tax. This is clearly taxation by enumeration, and it is explicitly forbidden by the 16th Amendment.

e⋅nu⋅mer⋅ate

 /ɪˈnuməˌreɪt,ɪˈnyu-/-at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.

1.to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.

2.to ascertain the number of; count.

EDIT: I want to point out that if a personal health insurance mandate is passed, it's greatest constitutional challenge will be from the 16th amendment itself, since the way that the tax for not having health insurance is framed, it is, in fact, taxation by enumeration. The 16th amendment will provide the most direct and obvious line of consitutional challenge. No other federal taxes function in the way that is being proposed in the health reform bill, and there is a clear reason for this, since any taxes of such a nature would have a difficult time standing up to a challenge based on the 16th amendment.

I'll just say that I hope the thing does not pass.

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

Well said and well written.

[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

They won't be advocating it on the air anymore, at least not on Air America. Air America is history.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/21/air-america-goes-air/

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"] 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 mandatoryVandalvideo

That sounds a lot like a legal positivist view based on the assumption that our rights come from the government, not from our Creator. It is also based on the assumption that the government is the treasury of all rights and "doles" them out to the populace. In reality, our nation was founded on the principle that the people possess all of their God-given rights and delegate certain, limited rights to the government, formed at their consent. Those assumptions lay the groundwork for judicial activism, allowing Judges to legislate from the bench.

If the people want to delegate rights and powers to the government, formed at their consent to serve them, there is a well defined process to amend the Constitution.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]The government has the power to levy fines if you don't listen to the law. It doesn't matter what law that is. You can't challenge the constitutionality of an act merely because you are charged a fine from violation of the act. These are clauses in law we call prima facie evidence clauses. If you break a law, fines are valid means to exact punishment on you. If you decide to dance on a lawn in the middle of autumn when they need that space for public construction, and the state has enacted a time, place and manner restriction, they may fine you. If you want to challenge this on Constitutional grounds you must prove that requiring health care itself in unconstitutional, not the fine. This is simple maxims of equity.dkrustyklown

You clearly either have no idea as to what you are talking about or regard individual liberties as unimportant.

The government has the power to levy fines if you don't listen to the law. It doesn't matter what law that is.Vandalvideo

This patently false in our system of government. Only in totalitarian regimes is your assertion true. We have inherent rights and liberties that supercede any majority's ability to write laws.

By your logic, all of the laws that were enacted by the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's are just. They were democratically elected, after all.

I agree and what we are seeing now is the fruit of legal positivism and the legal and judicial academy's decades long effort to separate morality from the law and supplant natural law as the basis of our justice system. It is the fruit of decades of "teaching and convincing" by our education system, that the government is the source of our rights, rather than our Creator.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Also, by simply not purchasing insurance, you make insurance more expensive for me. The more people insured, the less expensive premiums are, and vice versa. And by not purchasing insurance you are making it harder, sometimes impossible, for those with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance, which has a negative effect on their mortality. dkrustyklown

You are under the false impression that I am obligated to help you save money by spending my own money. Logic is a two-way street. I can turn your very argument around against you.

By forcing me to purchase insurance to make your life easier, then my life has become more difficult.

By the way, you do not have a right to cheap health insurance. There is nothing in the constitution that says that you can strip others of their liberty and prosperity just to serve your own personal an selfish health needs.

My answer to all of the collectivist garbage that seems popular these days is: So someone goes completely broke trying to pay their medical bills. So what? Lots of different people have lots of different problems. Perhaps they should have lived a healthier lifestyle. Perhaps they should have looked both ways before crossing the street. Perhaps they were just meant to die because their genes. **** happens. We can't fix everyone's problems. You can't make life perfect for everyone. There is luck and there is risk. If you don't have health insurance and you end up falling into canyon, requiring expensive medical care that causes you to go completely broke and homeless, then that's how the cookie crumbles. Individual liberty means not imposing your misfortune on the fortunes of others.

We are a nation of individual liberties. Individual liberty comes with individual risk. With all of positives that come from having individual liberty, we must also accept that there are individual burdens that accompany that liberty. You succeed on your own, but you can also fail on your own.

I agree with your analysis. The logic of the collectivist thinking that has so permeated our government, legal, and eduction systems is rooted in commutarianism.

Well from my perspective you are stealing money from me. You make my premiums more expensive by not purchasing insurance, and then you expect me to foot the bill when you can't afford the medical bill from the emergency room.-Sun_Tzu-

Here is the problem with that train of thought. Let's carry it to its logical conclusion. You could make that claim about virtually every product in existence that depends on economies of scale. The fact that everyone does not own a computer makes computers cost more, same for cars, bikes, food product, etc. Should we pass laws that require people to purchase these products to gain economies of scale and drive the prices down for those that do purchase these products?

Not only that, but the willingly uninsured are, in a way, responsible for the deaths of a countless number of people who were deemed "unprofitable" by insurance companies and were thus unable to receive sufficient medical care.-Sun_Tzu-

That is just not the case. The uninsured in this country do receive healthcare. There are laws that prohibit those needing emergency care from being turned away. There are also many, many, documented cases of women that are unable to afford maternity costs receiving full care.

It is because of the willingly uninsured that insurance companies do not have the means to sell those with pre-existing conditions insurance. -Sun_Tzu-

I don't accept that premise. Insurance companies are free to offer policies that cover pre-existing conditions at higher premiums based on the nature of that pre-existing condition and at the appropriate premium.

If a company wants to manufacture a product, say a totally automated complete house de-duster, but doesn't because the price of that product would be very prohibitively expensive and therefore there would be little demand, should we pass a law that requires everyone to buy that product so that the company can manufacture it?

Why should these people die in the name of your "liberty" to not buy insurance? Why isn't their right to life being considered?-Sun_Tzu-

Just curious, do you feel the same way about the right to life of the unborn? What if one does not support abortion? Using your logic, why should I be forced to use my wealth to purchase an insurance product that covers someone else's abortion which I find morally objectionable?

In addition, even if everyone was required to purchase health insurance, there are many, many things that affect the need for healthcare such as diet, exercise, lifestyIe, etc. In reality those whose eating, exercise, and lifestyIe, result in their increased need for healthcare, result in increased premium costs for those whose eating, exercise, and lifestyIes are such that they require less healthcare. Should we pass laws regarding eating, exercise, and lifestyIes, as well. Using your logic, this would be required as well to optimize premiums so that someone doesn't pay more than they should. The same could be said for home insurance, auto insurance, etc. Should the government go into everyone's home and make sure they are eating properly, getting enough sleep, not smoking or drinking to excess, have fire alarms, etc. The list goes on and on.

In regards to pre-existing conditions. Should we pass laws that force insurance companies to sell a policy after the fact and repair one's car after they are involved in an accident even though they were uninsured at the time of the accident? Should we pass laws that force home insurance companies to pay for fire damage to a person's house id they go in and purchase a policy after their house has burned down?

He was speaking legally, not philosophically. And he is right. The government has the legal right to do a lot. That being said, I am a libertarian.coolbeans90

I disagree with that. They have no "legal right", under natural law and the Constitution to do anything that is beyond the powers delegated to them by the people. They usurp the rights of the people under threat of force, and we allow it to continue.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

He was speaking legally, not philosophically. And he is right. The government has the legal right to do a lot. That being said, I am a libertarian.

dkrustyklown

I disagree and I think that you are selling the Constitution short. Read with complete faith to the original intent of its authors and the authors of the amendments, the Constitution sets itself up as a supreme law. A law of laws, if you will. It forbids the abuse of governmental power that encroaches on individual liberties. It is just such abuse of governmental power that the proposed Health Care Reform bill entails.

I agree and acknowledge that among the general American populace today, there is a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the framers original intent. This has resulted in our government being allowed, by the people, to continue to usurp power and imfringe on the liberties of the people.

For anyone interested, here is a site that has an excellent free seminar on the Constitution and the original intent of our framers.

http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/

For those interested, here is an excellent article that discusses the Constitution, the law, and the un-Constitutional expansion of the federal government's powers.

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael112.htm

Here is the problem with that train of thought. Let's carry it to its logical conclusion. You could make that claim about virtually every product in existence that depends on economies of scale. The fact that everyone does not own a computer makes computers cost more, same for cars, bikes, food product, etc. Should we pass laws that require people to purchase these products to gain economies of scale and drive the prices down for those that do purchase these products?blackregiment

It would be fine if I was not required to foot the bill for your emergency care when you can't afford it because you chose to not buy insurance.

That is just not the case. The uninsured in this country do receive healthcare. There are laws that prohibit those needing emergency care from being turned away. There are also many, many, documented cases of women that are unable to afford maternity costs receiving full care.blackregiment

That doesn't override the fact that tens of thousands of people die annually because they are uninsured. Moreover, virtually all relevant studies show that access to preventive care saves lives and increases longevity. These people are having years of precious life stolen from them because people choose to not buy insurance.

I don't accept that premise. Insurance companies are free to offer policies that cover pre-existing conditions at higher premiums based on the nature of that pre-existing condition and at the appropriate premium.

If a company wants to manufacture a product, say a totally automated complete house de-duster, but doesn't because the price of that product would be very prohibitively expensive and therefore there would be little demand, should we pass a law that requires everyone to buy that product so that the company can manufacture it?blackregiment

The number of lives an automated complete house de-duster would save is minuscule comparedto the number of lives that would be saved if those with pre-existing conditions were able to buy insurance. Forcing people to buy said de-duster would serve no real purpose. It's a very unnecessary product.

even if everyone was required to purchase health insurance, there are many, many things that affect the need for healthcare such as diet, exercise, lifestyIe, etc. In reality those whose eating, exercise, and lifestyIe, result in their increased need for healthcare, result in increased premium costs for those whose eating, exercise, and lifestyIes are such that they require less healthcare. Should we pass laws regarding eating, exercise, and lifestyIes, as well. Using your logic, this would be required as well to optimize premiums so that someone doesn't pay more than they should. The same could be said for home insurance, auto insurance, etc. Should the government go into everyone's home and make sure they are eating properly, getting enough sleep, not smoking or drinking to excess, have fire alarms, etc. The list goes on and on.blackregiment

The logistics of regulating eating, exercise and lifestyle are not feasible. And even then, it would be unconstitutional, per Griswold v. Connecticut.

In regards to pre-existing conditions. Should we pass laws that force insurance companies to sell a policy after the fact and repair one's car after they are involved in an accident even though they were uninsured at the time of the accident? Should we pass laws that force home insurance companies to pay for fire damage to a person's house id they go in and purchase a policy after their house has burned down?blackregiment

No we shouldn't, and if we did it would destroy the health care system. That's why a ban on discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions needs to be coupled with an individual mandate (which then requires subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance), so people don't purchase insurance post facto.

Here is the problem with that train of thought. Let's carry it to its logical conclusion. You could make that claim about virtually every product in existence that depends on economies of scale. The fact that everyone does not own a computer makes computers cost more, same for cars, bikes, food product, etc. Should we pass laws that require people to purchase these products to gain economies of scale and drive the prices down for those that do purchase these products?blackregiment

It would be fine if I was not required to foot the bill for your emergency care when you can't afford it because you chose to not buy insurance.-Sun_Tzu-

Then you also must agree that I should not be forced to "foot the bill" for someone else's abortion, or the healthcare costs of a smoker, or of one that over eats or does not eat healthy, or one that does drugs, or one that abuses alcohol, or one that chooses not to work, or one that does not pay their bills, or one that was given a mortgage they could not afford, or to bail out a failing bank (bank bailout) or business (GM and Chrysler), or insurance company (AIG) that made bad business decisions, or even the bill for another's education. The list goes on and on. Where do you draw the line?

That is just not the case. The uninsured in this country do receive healthcare. There are laws that prohibit those needing emergency care from being turned away. There are also many, many, documented cases of women that are unable to afford maternity costs receiving full care.blackregiment

That doesn't override the fact that tens of thousands of people die annually because they are uninsured. Moreover, virtually all relevant studies show that access to preventive care saves lives and increases longevity. These people are having years of precious life stolen from them because people choose to not buy insurance. -Sun_Tzu-

Discounting the fact that I believe you are over-exaggerating, I can't believe you wrote that. Even if your claim were true, let me see if I understand your logic. You claim that uninsured people are dying because other uninsured people did not by health insurance? Wow is all I can say to that. What about the one that you claim dies because they chose not to buy health insurance. Are they absolved of personal responsibility?

I don't accept that premise. Insurance companies are free to offer policies that cover pre-existing conditions at higher premiums based on the nature of that pre-existing condition and at the appropriate premium.

If a company wants to manufacture a product, say a totally automated complete house de-duster, but doesn't because the price of that product would be very prohibitively expensive and therefore there would be little demand, should we pass a law that requires everyone to buy that product so that the company can manufacture it?blackregiment

The number of lives an automated complete house de-duster would save is minuscule compared to the number of lives that would be saved if those with pre-existing conditions were able to buy insurance. Forcing people to buy said de-duster would serve no real purpose. It's a very unnecessary product. -Sun_Tzu-

And the number of people with wrecked cars and burnt down houses would be fewer if the uninsured could go to their insurance company and force them to sell them a policy to cover their loss after the fact as well. And the number of people dying from aids would be greatly reduced if government made certain lifestyIes and casual sex illegal as well. Are you advocating that? The number of dead babies would be greatly reduced if abortion was, made illegal. Do you support that as well?

Even if everyone was required to purchase health insurance, there are many, many things that affect the need for healthcare such as diet, exercise, lifestyIe, etc. In reality those whose eating, exercise, and lifestyIe, result in their increased need for healthcare, result in increased premium costs for those whose eating, exercise, and lifestyIes are such that they require less healthcare. Should we pass laws regarding eating, exercise, and lifestyIes, as well. Using your logic, this would be required as well to optimize premiums so that someone doesn't pay more than they should. The same could be said for home insurance, auto insurance, etc. Should the government go into everyone's home and make sure they are eating properly, getting enough sleep, not smoking or drinking to excess, have fire alarms, etc. The list goes on and on.blackregiment

The logistics of regulating eating, exercise and lifestyle are not feasible. And even then, it would be unconstitutional, per Griswold v. Connecticut. -Sun_Tzu-

Believe me, I am not advocating that but why should I "be forced to foot the bill" with higher premiums for those that choose unhealthy lifestyIe choices? Come on now, where is the consistency in your position? Why should I be forced to "foot the bill" for someone else's abortion which I consider morally oppose?

In regards to pre-existing conditions. Should we pass laws that force insurance companies to sell a policy after the fact and repair one's car after they are involved in an accident even though they were uninsured at the time of the accident? Should we pass laws that force home insurance companies to pay for fire damage to a person's house id they go in and purchase a policy after their house has burned down?blackregiment

No we shouldn't, and if we did it would destroy the health care system. That's why a ban on discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions needs to be coupled with an individual mandate (which then requires subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance), so people don't purchase insurance post facto.-Sun_Tzu-

You seem to be opposed to the concept of personal responsibilities and consequences for bad choices we make. If someone chooses to be uninsured and then develops a serious health condition, why should others have to "foot the bill" for their bad decision?

By the way, the current bills as proposed, do not alleviate that problem since the fine is less than the cost of the insurance premium. People can simply continue to choose to be uninsured, pay the fine so they don't go to jail, and then if they develop a serious health condition, buy the policy then which would cover their pre-existing condition. Why should I be "forced to foot the bill"?

You are then also in agreement with the Kelo decision, right? Let's see. You believe that it is perfectly ok for individual liberties to be discarded for the collectivist good. You don't believe that our nation was founded on the principles of individual liberty (as much as that conflicts with the reasons for the American Revolution in the first place). You believe that nothing in our constitution necessitates an individualist culture. For you justice is irrelevant and the law must be followed, no matter how unjust it might be. You support the idea of government forcing us to purchase products from private, for-profit corporations that have managed to lobby their way into the good graces of politicians, so even though you are a collectivist, you are not, however, a Marxist. According to your own statements, any and all individual rights that are supposedly guaranteed by our constitution can be discarded as long as the givornment can claim that it is convenient to do so. In your sense of right or wrong, the constitution places no practical limits on the the excercise of governmental power, since the government need only show that it has an interest in order to discard individual liberties.Wow, I have a pamphlet for you to read that you will find gratifying. It's called, Fascism, and it was written a certain person called Benito Mussolini in 1932.I feel compelled to point out that your reasoning and ideology are precisely why I firmly believe in and practice my 2nd amendment rights. It does not take a pre-law degree to understand justice. I have met illiterate Peruvian potato farmers that had a better grasp on the moral nuances of justice. If it comes to it, then one day we may meet on the field of battle, where patriots truly die like men.dkrustyklown

That sounds a lot like a legal positivist view based on the assumption that our rights come from the government, not from our Creator. It is also based on the assumption that the government is the treasury of all rights and "doles" them out to the populace. In reality, our nation was founded on the principle that the people possess all of their God-given rights and delegate certain, limited rights to the government, formed at their consent. Those assumptions lay the groundwork for judicial activism, allowing Judges to legislate from the bench.If the people want to delegate rights and powers to the government, formed at their consent to serve them, there is a well defined process to amend the Constitution.blackregiment

I disagree with that. They have no "legal right", under natural law and the Constitution to do anything that is beyond the powers delegated to them by the people. They usurp the rights of the people under threat of force, and we allow it to continue.blackregiment

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

He was speaking legally, not philosophically. And he is right. The government has the legal right to do a lot. That being said, I am a libertarian.

dkrustyklown

I disagree and I think that you are selling the Constitution short. Read with complete faith to the original intent of its authors and the authors of the amendments, the Constitution sets itself up as a supreme law. A law of laws, if you will. It forbids the abuse of governmental power that encroaches on individual liberties. It is just such abuse of governmental power that the proposed Health Care Reform bill entails.

It is unjustified seizure of property and wealth without due process, in violation of the 4th amendment.

It is precisely a violation of our religious 1st amendment rights (many religions consider insurance to be a sin...and that's a whole other can of worms).

It is precisely an example of the federal government taking on a power which is not granted to it by the Constitution, in clear violation of the 10th amendment. Only a tortured, stretched, and abused interpretation of the Commerce Clause could lead to a differing conclusion.

The fines that people who do not purchase health insurance are hit by are precisely taxation by enumeration, because it is, in fact, a tax for not doing something. Those that do not purchase health ensurance are enumerated, which is, to be put on a list. Those on the list are then taxed while those that are not on the list avoid the tax. This is clearly taxation by enumeration, and it is explicitly forbidden by the 16th Amendment.

e⋅nu⋅mer⋅ate

 /ɪˈnuməˌreɪt,ɪˈnyu-/-at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.

1.to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.

2.to ascertain the number of; count.

EDIT: I want to point out that if a personal health insurance mandate is passed, it's greatest constitutional challenge will be from the 16th amendment itself, since the way that the tax for not having health insurance is framed, it is, in fact, taxation by enumeration. The 16th amendment will provide the most direct and obvious line of consitutional challenge. No other federal taxes function in the way that is being proposed in the health reform bill, and there is a clear reason for this, since any taxes of such a nature would have a difficult time standing up to a challenge based on the 16th amendment.

Where do you draw the line?blackregiment

Well what you do is take it by a case-by-case basis. You don't bunch all these unrelated issues together and prescribe an one-size fits all solution.

Discounting the fact that I believe you are over-exaggerating, I can't believe you wrote that. Even if your claim were true, let me see if I understand your logic. You claim that uninsured people are dying because other uninsured people did not by health insurance? Wow is all I can say to that. What about the one that you claim dies because they chose not to buy health insurance. Are they absolved of personal responsibility?blackregiment

Well it's not an exaggeration. But no, those who choose not to buy health insurance aren't usually the one's who die because of a lack of health insurance (although they can certainly go bankrupt very easily), because those people are usually young and very healthy. The one's who die are those with pre-existing conditions and those who simply cannot afford health insurance. They didn't choose to not buy health insurance, the choice was forced upon them.

And the number of people with wrecked card and burnt down houses would be fewer if the uninsured could go to their insurance company and force them to sell them a policy to cover their loss after the fact as well. And the number of people dying from aids would be greatly reduced if government made certain lifestyIes and casual sex illegal as well. Are you advocating that? The number of dead babies would be greatly reduced if abortion was, made illegal. Do you support that as well?blackregiment

What are you talking about? This is all irrelevant. It's a non sequitar to go from "the government should make sure that everyone has health insurance" to "the government should actively regulate the lives of each and every individual person".

Believe me, I am not advocating that but why should I "be forced to foot the bill" with higher premiums for those that choose unhealthy lifestyIe choices? Come on now, where is the consistency in your position? Why should I be forced to "foot the bill" for someone else's abortion which I consider morally oppose?blackregiment

....As I said, the logistics of actively regulating peoples personal life****is unfeasible and it would be a waste of resources. And, it is unconstitutional.

You seem to be opposed to the concept of personal responsibilities and consequences for bad choices we make. If someone chooses to be uninsured and then develops a serious health condition, why should others have to "foot the bill" for their bad decision?

blackregiment

What? Listen, there are three options. The first one is not requiring hospitals to deliver emergency care to those who do not have insurance and cannot afford it. Under that option, no one would have to "foot the bill" for anyone else, and instead you'll have a situation where people are dying in the emergency room and being refused care. The second option is having the system we have now, where we allow people to go uninsured, and yet require hospitals to give these people care regardless. The result of that is having everyone else who has insurance foot the bill. The third option, the option that I am advocating for, is requiring everyone to have insurance so if and when they need to use the emergency room, I don't have to pay anything more for their care.

That sounds a lot like a legal positivist view based on the assumption that our rights come from the government, not from our Creator. It is also based on the assumption that the government is the treasury of all rights and "doles" them out to the populace. In reality, our nation was founded on the principle that the people possess all of their God-given rights and delegate certain, limited rights to the government, formed at their consent. Those assumptions lay the groundwork for judicial activism, allowing Judges to legislate from the bench.If the people want to delegate rights and powers to the government, formed at their consent to serve them, there is a well defined process to amend the Constitution.blackregiment

You surpassed my expectations regiment. I would have never guessed you would be aware of legal thinking and what legal positivism is. Yes, I am Hart-lite. Since I am unable to prove the idea of God, and because there are thousands of claims to Natural Law, the idea that law should be based on it is entirely untenable. There are far too many people who would claim injustice.Vandalvideo

Natural Law is rooted in justice, right and wrong. It was the foundation upon which our nation as founded. Legal positivism is rooted in relativism, it seeks to separate morality from the law and codify every possible circumstance. By removing morality from the law and replacing it with relativism it is open to corruption by the special interests that own the legislators and judicial activists.

I disagree with that. They have no "legal right", under natural law and the Constitution to do anything that is beyond the powers delegated to them by the people. They usurp the rights of the people under threat of force, and we allow it to continue.blackregiment

The Constitution merely outlines what the government may not do. It does not serve as an exhaustive list of what the government can do. Unless the Constitution explicitly says the government may not do something, it may.Vandalvideo

Natural Law is rooted in justice, right and wrong. It was the foundation upon which our nation as founded. Legal positivism is rooted in relativism, it seeks to separate morality from the law and codify every possible circumstance. By removing morality from the law and replacing it with relativism it is open to corruption by the special interests that own the legislators and judicial activists.blackregiment

The Constitution delegates specific powers to the federal government. All powers not delegated are retained by the people and the states.

Where do you draw the line?blackregiment

Well what you do is take it by a case-by-case basis. You don't bunch all these unrelated issues together and prescribe an one-size fits all solution. -Sun_Tzu-

And who makes those decisions, some bureaucrat in Washington? Believe me, once you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Once government gains control of healthcare, they will use that as an excuses to micro-manage every aspect of or lives.

Discounting the fact that I believe you are over-exaggerating, I can't believe you wrote that. Even if your claim were true, let me see if I understand your logic. You claim that uninsured people are dying because other uninsured people did not by health insurance? Wow is all I can say to that. What about the one that you claim dies because they chose not to buy health insurance. Are they absolved of personal responsibility?blackregiment

Well it's not an exaggeration. But no, those who choose not to buy health insurance aren't usually the one's who die because of a lack of health insurance (although they can certainly go bankrupt very easily), because those people are usually young and very healthy. The one's who die are those with pre-existing conditions and those who simply cannot afford health insurance. They didn't choose to not buy health insurance, the choice was forced upon them. -Sun_Tzu-

Wow, a study from a very liberal university. There are other studies that dispute that number. By the way, the study you linked to does not support your assertion that a person filing to purchase healthcare insurance causes others to die. In addition, you have ignored my question about abortion. Are you no concerned about the 50,000,000 babies that were denied the right to life BY HEALTCARE? What about them? They never even got a chance to develop a pre-existing condition.

And the number of people with wrecked cars and burnt down houses would be fewer if the uninsured could go to their insurance company and force them to sell them a policy to cover their loss after the fact as well. And the number of people dying from aids would be greatly reduced if government made certain lifestyIes and casual sex illegal as well. Are you advocating that? The number of dead babies would be greatly reduced if abortion was, made illegal. Do you support that as well?blackregiment

What are you talking about? This is all irrelevant. It's a non sequitar to go from "the government should make sure that everyone has health insurance" to "the government should actively regulate the lives of each and every individual person".-Sun_Tzu-

No. it is quite relevant. Show me the enumerated right in the Constitution for the federal government to require by force that citizens buy a product. Believe me, I am not advocating government control of and the micro-managing of our lives at the expense of liberty. That would be the collectivists and statists that want that.

Believe me, I am not advocating that but why should I "be forced to foot the bill" with higher premiums for those that choose unhealthy lifestyIe choices? Come on now, where is the consistency in your position? Why should I be forced to "foot the bill" for someone else's abortion which I consider morally oppose?blackregiment

....As I said, the logistics of actively regulating peoples personal lifestyIe is unfeasible and it would be a waste of resources. And, it is unconstitutional. -Sun_Tzu-

It would be unconstitutional as is the proposed government takeover of healthcare. You missed the point I was making. One of your arguments is that by forcing the purchase of healthcare insurance, it would reduce the cost for everyone. Besides being an unproven premise, if you are going to use that for justification then, EVERYTHING that causes higher healthcare costs should be regulated, diet, exercise, obesity, lifestyIe, etc.

You seem to be opposed to the concept of personal responsibilities and consequences for bad choices we make. If someone chooses to be uninsured and then develops a serious health condition, why should others have to "foot the bill" for their bad decision?blackregiment

What? Listen, there are three options. The first one is not requiring hospitals to deliver emergency care to those who do not have insurance and cannot afford it. Under that option, no one would have to "foot the bill" for anyone else, and instead you'll have a situation where people are dying in the emergency room and being refused care. The second option is having the system we have now, where we allow people to go uninsured, and yet require hospitals to give these people care regardless. The result of that is having everyone else who has insurance foot the bill. The third option, the option that I am advocating for, is requiring everyone to have insurance so if and when they need to use the emergency room, I don't have to pay anything more for their care.-Sun_Tzu-

No, there are other options such as opening the sale of insurance across state lines, reducing malpractice suits, medical savings accounts, etc. If you don't want to pay for the care of the uninsured, then how can you expect me to pay for abortions, healthcare costs associated with obesity, lack of exercise, drug use, alcoholism, or sexual diseases associated with various lifestyIes?

Show me where in the Constitution you are entitled to make me buy a product, therefore confiscating my wealth, to reduce your healthcare costs, without also addressing other things as just mentioned., that also drive up healthcare costs. Those that desire to only address one aspect of the issue seem disingenuous. Government run healthcare is not about healthcare, it is about control, plain and simple. As Reagan said, once the government gains control of one's access to healthcare, they have enslaved hat person.

Natural Law is rooted in justice, right and wrong. It was the foundation upon which our nation as founded. Legal positivism is rooted in relativism, it seeks to separate morality from the law and codify every possible circumstance. By removing morality from the law and replacing it with relativism it is open to corruption by the special interests that own the legislators and judicial activists.blackregiment

The problem with Natural Law theory is that everyone and their mom has their own version of Natural Law. You, Mr. Christian, have your own version of Natural Law. However, at the same time Mr. Muslim has his own version of Natural Law. So does Mr. Budha, Mr. Hindi and Mr. Shinto. The problem with using Natural Law as a legal theory is that you run into the fact that it is hard to establish an objective foundation for enforcement among the version natural laws out there. Vandalvideo

While you may want to ignore X law because you find it unjust, Mr. Shinto may equally disavow your laws becuase he finds them unjust under his own natural law. Vandalvideo

Natural law as a basis for law is extremely chaotic, because if you ignore what you dislike, you have no way to force your own views on others and expect them to accept stuff they don't like. We are a country of Misters. Good luck forcing your natural law on others.

I don't accept that premise. Laws based on right and wrong, morality, rather than codified relativism are far less chaotic and more just that laws based on legal relativism.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]The Constitution delegates specific powers to the federal government. All powers not delegated are retained by the people and the states.Vandalvideo

There is a huge problem with you employing the Tenth Amendment. It merely says those not delegated or reserved. But you have to remember that the Constitution is subject to change. The constitution is not unchangeable in and of itself. It may be the case that more powers are created at a later time. Vandalvideo

I don't accept your premise that the Constitution is subject to change, other than by the well defined process to amend it. The very mess we are in is the result of judicial activism and the usurptation of the liberties of the people and the states by the federal government. More powers are only usurped by the federal government because the states and the people have not been diligent in saying no. That is fast changing. Many state legislatures are now beginning to assert their rights and ay no to federal mandates. In some state legislatures, there is even talk of secession. The line is being drawn and I believe the future holds some rocky roads that will be traversed between the states and the leviathan federal government.

The times, they are a changing. The winds of liberty are again blowing across the land. The good people of America will not allow their enslavement by the federal leviathan. You can take that to the bank!

I have to go. I'll talk with you later.

The fallacy in your argument is that you forget that our nation was founded on Judeo/Christian values, not Islamic or various Eastern religions.blackregiment

If Mr. Shinto chooses to live in America, he must assimilate and abide by the laws of this nation.

I don't accept your premise that the Constitution is subject to change, other than by the well defined process to amend it. The very mess we are in is the result of judicial activism and the usurptation of the liberties of the people and the states by the federal government. More powers are only usurped by the federal government because the states and the people have not been diligent in saying no. That is fast changing. Many state legislatures are now beginning to assert their rights and ay no to federal mandates. In some state legislatures, there is even talk of secession. The line is being drawn and I believe the future holds some rocky roads that will be traversed between the states and the leviathan federal government.

The times, they are a changing. The winds of liberty are again blowing across the land. The good people of America will not allow their enslavement by the federal leviathan. You can take that to the bank!I have to go. I'll talk with you later.

I find it pretty hilarious.. "Well the filibuster thing is getting ridiculous but thank god are you seeing what those crazy dems are doing! lol".. This is pretty much trollbait, the same could be said to what people were thinking of Bush years in office.. This doesn't solve the problem that the filibuster has become extremely rampent in a increasingly partisan environment especially for the Republicans as of late it seems.. Even during the worse years of Bush, I have not seen the amount of overall hostility Obama has gotten.. Such as being openly being called a Socialist, suggesting that he is not a United States citizen.. Or interupting him among speeches calling him a liar.. I can understand if this were a small minority group, dems and repubs alike have this.. But this doesn't seem the case, instead it seems like a very large and vocal group within office doing these things.. Another facepalm moment was when the Texas governor threatened to secede when Obama was elected to office.. I mean seriously? The debate shouldn't be about partisanship related thigns right now.. But how the filibuster is entirelly too easy to use and uphold among a minority party that is willing to road block 99% of everything.. Something we never seen in the last 50 years of politics it seems.sSubZerOo

well there was that one time when this happened

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I find it pretty hilarious.. "Well the filibuster thing is getting ridiculous but thank god are you seeing what those crazy dems are doing! lol".. This is pretty much trollbait, the same could be said to what people were thinking of Bush years in office.. This doesn't solve the problem that the filibuster has become extremely rampent in a increasingly partisan environment especially for the Republicans as of late it seems.. Even during the worse years of Bush, I have not seen the amount of overall hostility Obama has gotten.. Such as being openly being called a Socialist, suggesting that he is not a United States citizen.. Or interupting him among speeches calling him a liar.. I can understand if this were a small minority group, dems and repubs alike have this.. But this doesn't seem the case, instead it seems like a very large and vocal group within office doing these things.. Another facepalm moment was when the Texas governor threatened to secede when Obama was elected to office.. I mean seriously? The debate shouldn't be about partisanship related thigns right now.. But how the filibuster is entirelly too easy to use and uphold among a minority party that is willing to road block 99% of everything.. Something we never seen in the last 50 years of politics it seems.Serraph105

well there was that one time when this happened

That was from a outraged Iraqi reporter.. Not a elected official in United States government, nor was he affiliated with either of the US parties..

And for the last time, it is punitive damages, not a bloody tax.Vandalvideo

tax
  /tæks/ [taks]
–noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
–verb (used with object)
3. (of a government)
a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one's resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal. to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic. to estimate or determine the amount or value of.
–verb (used without object)
8. to levy taxes.

Yes, it is a tax. Furthermore, it is a tax by enumeration. Let us review how the tax in the health reform bill works. Those who purchase health insurance are placed on a list of people who are not charged the tax. Those that do not purchase health insurance are placed on a list of peeople who are charged the tax. This enumerates two lists. One list of people who are taxed, and another list of people who are not taxed. Enforcement of this enumerated tax is turned over to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is the exective service responsible for collecting...here it come...you ready for it...TAXES! In fact, in the healthcare reform bill, as it is written in both the House and the Senate, refers explicitly to the US tax code to lay out what a person who refuses to purchase health insurance and refuses to pay the penalty is to be charged with.

Do you know what the health insurance reform bills say a person who refuses to pay the penalty is to be charged with in Federal criminal court? Do you? I doubt that you know, because then you wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that it is not a tax, so I'll tell you.

A person who refuses to pay the penalty for not purchasing health insurance is to be charged with tax evasion.

Yes, it is a tax. Otherwise, someone who refuses to pay it wouldn't be charged with tax evasion.

Oh, and just in case you still do not believe me. I refer you to page 29 of the Health Care Reform bill.

The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.

That quote is taken directly from the language of the Senate bill. In another part of the bill, it reads:

The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.

It is a tax, and that is irrefutable. Not only is it a tax, but it is a tax by enumeration, which is explicitly forbidden by the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any pre-law student should be able to grasp this simple concept.

The Constitution does not forbid government encroachment of our rights. There is such thing as qualified judicial review. The Constitution is not absolute, not by a long shot. Vandalvideo

This is what is being taught in Political Science classes these days, folks. Not only is it being expressed here by this individual, but I know because I have sat through about 90 credit hours worth of undergrad political science classes. The ideology of the teaching establishment in higher education these days is decidedly leftist, statist, collectivist, unAmerican, and a danger to all of the liberties that we as Americans should hold dear to our hearts.

I will not yield without a fight. Brothers, if such things come to dominate our government, then I beseech you to join me in war of the most glorious kind, that is, a war of liberation. If we succeed, then we may yet save this nation as the beacon of light on the hill for the world to see. If we fail, then at least we die like patriots...like true men that the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine would proudly stand by, shoulder to shoulder.

Heroism is not merely a tale of a bygone era. Heroism can appear at any moment. It is not too late to join the ranks of the founding fathers. Stand up and fight. That is your heritage. That is your right. When words fail to convince the academics, the jurists, and the bureaucrats of your unyielding desire to preserve your liberty, then replace your words with fire and metal, for that is, ultimately, the only language which they can understand.

Give no quarter. It is either them, or us. Coexistence is impossible.

This is what is being taught in Political Science classes these days, folks. Not only is it being expressed here by this individual, but I know because I have sat through about 90 credit hours worth of undergrad political science classes. The ideology of the teaching establishment in higher education these days is decidedly leftist, statist, collectivist, unAmerican, and a danger to all of the liberties that we as Americans should hold dear to our hearts. I will not yield without a fight. Brothers, if such things come to dominate our government, then I beseech you to join me in war of the most glorious kind, that is, a war of liberation. If we succeed, then we may yet save this nation as the beacon of light on the hill for the world to see. If we fail, then at least we die like patriots...like true men that the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine would proudly stand by, shoulder to shoulder.Heroism is not merely a tale of a bygone era. Heroism can appear at any moment. It is not too late to join the ranks of the founding fathers. Stand up and fight. That is your heritage. That is your right. When words fail to convince the academics, the jurists, the bureaucrats, and all of the other Phillistines if your unyielding desire to preserve your liberty, then replace your words with fire and metal, for that is, ultimately, the only language which they can understand.Give no quarter. It is either them, or us. Coexistence is impossibledkrustyklown

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]This is what is being taught in Political Science classes these days, folks. Not only is it being expressed here by this individual, but I know because I have sat through about 90 credit hours worth of undergrad political science classes. The ideology of the teaching establishment in higher education these days is decidedly leftist, statist, collectivist, unAmerican, and a danger to all of the liberties that we as Americans should hold dear to our hearts. I will not yield without a fight. Brothers, if such things come to dominate our government, then I beseech you to join me in war of the most glorious kind, that is, a war of liberation. If we succeed, then we may yet save this nation as the beacon of light on the hill for the world to see. If we fail, then at least we die like patriots...like true men that the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine would proudly stand by, shoulder to shoulder.Heroism is not merely a tale of a bygone era. Heroism can appear at any moment. It is not too late to join the ranks of the founding fathers. Stand up and fight. That is your heritage. That is your right. When words fail to convince the academics, the jurists, the bureaucrats, and all of the other Phillistines if your unyielding desire to preserve your liberty, then replace your words with fire and metal, for that is, ultimately, the only language which they can understand.Give no quarter. It is either them, or us. Coexistence is impossibleVandalvideo

Judge Dredd aproves.

You're absolutely, positively wrong. It is not a tax. It is not demanded FOR support of something. It demanded as penalty for breaking the law. It is also not a duty, demand, or obligation. It is contingent based upon you breaking the law. It is punitive damages for breaking the law, nothing more, nothing less. You can't challenge the constitutionality of an act based on the fact that there are punitive damages for you breaking it. There are thousands upon thousands of statutory laws that allow for punitive damages. Being charged with tax evasion means that you were charged with evading taxes. It does not mean you were charged X amount of money subsequently thereafter.Vandalvideo

You clearly have not read the health reform bill or even a summary of the health reform bill, and as such have absolutely no idea of what you speak.

The penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a penalty for breaking the law. The health reform bill states, in no uncertain terms, that individuals must either purchase health insurance or pay an excise tax for not doing so. It's on page 29, as well as peppered throughout the bill. According to the bill itself, failure to purchase health insurance is not a crime. The refusal to pay the excise tax imposed by a failure to purchase health insurance, however, is. Specifically, it is defined as tax evasion by the very law that we are discussing.

If it is not a tax, then why does the health reform bill itself call it a tax? Even the Democrats that support the bill concede this point.

NOTE: It was on page 29 in its original form, but since it has been amended dozens of times and had about 1500 pages added to since then, the actual language is found about 300 pages in.

You clearly have not read the health reform bill or even a summary of the health reform bill, and as such have absolutely no idea of what you speak.The penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a penalty for breaking the law. The health reform bill states, in no uncertain terms, that individuals must either purchase health insurance or pay an excise tax for not doing so. It's on page 29, as well as peppered throughout the bill. According to the bill itself, failure to purchase health insurance is not a crime. The refusal to pay the excise tax imposed by a failure to purchase health insurance, however, is. Specifically, it is defined as tax evasion by the very law that we are discussing.If it is not a tax, then why does the health reform bill itself call it a tax? Even the Democrats that support the bill concede this point.dkrustyklown

need not be with intent to gain revenue. It can be solely with intent to deter substantive, imminent lawless actions. I am the law. Don't like me? Tough, but don't spread misconceptions about me.Vandalvideo

Once again, the act of not purchasing health insurance is not the crime. The crime, in the case of the proposed health reform legislation, is the failure to pay the TAX that one is charged if one fails to purchase health insurance. If it were a penalty for a lawless act, then the penalty could only be assessed after an individual that has failed to purchase health insurance has been formally charged with a crime and convicted of said crime. This is not how the proposed legislation works, however. Even under the proposed legislation, the failure to purchase health insurance is not a crime. If the bill does not define the failure to purchase health insurance as a crime, then the penalty assessed for failing to purchase health insurance cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a criminal penalty for a lawless act.

You really need to actually read the proposed legislation in order to properly discuss it. It is clear that you have not read it.

That was from a outraged Iraqi reporter.. Not a elected official in United States government, nor was he affiliated with either of the US parties..

sSubZerOo

The fallacy in your argument is that you forget that our nation was founded on Judeo/Christian values, not Islamic or various Eastern religions.blackregiment

And since then we have established that government may not necessarily discriminate based on religion. Vandalvideo

That's right they cannot Constitutionally do that but they try to. It is up to the people to rise up and say no.

Any religion, if they so choose, have the power to exert their own influence on the system. Vandalvideo

That's right, through electing representatives that will do their will.

We have seperation of church and state Mr. Christian. I am not oblidged to listen to your morals. If you don't like secular laws, I don't like yours.Vandalvideo

That's right, the government cannot establish a national religion. By the way the majority of laws are attempts to legislate morality or permit immorality.

If Mr. Shinto chooses to live in America, he must assimilate and abide by the laws of this nation.blackregiment

Now you've 'devolved' to my argument. If you want to live in America, you better assimilate to whatever laws we have. Even if you think they are unjust.Vandalvideo

No, if the people consider them unjust, they elect representatives that will change those unjust laws.

I don't accept your premise that the Constitution is subject to change, other than by the well defined process to amend it. The very mess we are in is the result of judicial activism and the usurptation of the liberties of the people and the states by the federal government. More powers are only usurped by the federal government because the states and the people have not been diligent in saying no. That is fast changing. Many state legislatures are now beginning to assert their rights and ay no to federal mandates. In some state legislatures, there is even talk of secession. The line is being drawn and I believe the future holds some rocky roads that will be traversed between the states and the leviathan federal government.blackregiment

You're ignoring the responsibilities of the Judiciary. The fact of the matter is that laws need to be elaborated. You can't just have a rule and expect everyone to suddenly be able to follow it. .Vandalvideo

The function of the Judiciary, at the lower lever is to objectively follow the law, and the Constitution, not legislate from the bench.

Let me employ a classic example from a UT law professor. You may be able to better understand this example as it relates to your own religion:

(example) ?Vandalvideo

Your example shows several things, First that the law professor does not know much about the Bible. Second, that he is ripping verses out of context. Third, it is a poor example because it presents a scenario where no law has been passed and the Judge is acting both as a legislator and a Judge. This is one of our major problem today, legislating from the bench. Finally, he makes no mention of any sort of Constitution that is the guide that is the umbrella under which the rule of law must function. You seem to favor legislating from the bench. This is one thing tat the Founders warned against, and over reaching Judiciary.

Now I will give you an example. There was a case in NY, I believe where a grandson blew his grandmother away with a shotgun. He was sentenced to life in prison. While in prison, he filed suit to collect his share of the inheritance. The Judge looked at the inheritance law and ruled that since the inheritance law did not specifically address or prohibit a person that had killed the person he was attempting to get an inheritance from, the lawsuit could proceed.

This is the kind of nonsense that happens under legal positivism, when morality is separated from the law.

The times, they are a changing. The winds of liberty are again blowing across the land. The good people of America will not allow their enslavement by the federal leviathan. You can take that to the bank!I have to go. I'll talk with you later.blackregiment

if you expect me to accept that you aren't bound by the laws of the land, why are you apply double standards to Mr. Shinto with a different natural law theory?Vandalvideo

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I was not bound by the laws of the land. The entirety of the legal system of western civilization and America in specific is rooted in natural law. Those that want to separate morality from the law, common sense based on right and wrong, rooted in God's higher law, and true justice, and supplant it with moral relativism, have infected our legal system with legal positivism. Under legal positivism, the atrocities of the Nazi's, coded in their law, disregarding God's higher law, cannot be condemned under the theory of legal positivism.

I refer you back to the definitions I supplied from Black's Law Dictionary. The problem is that, many times, Senators are really ignorant when it comes to the law; Please refer to South Carolina. Because of this, the Courts evaluate legislation based on the legal interpretation of these documents. Technically, it isn't a tax. At the same time, they erroneously call it a tax. The court chalks up these mistakes to mere "error" and proceeds to employ the "common legal vernacular" found in the writings of prior jurists (blacks law included), case law, or other statutes.Vandalvideo

If, as you say, the excise tax for failing to purchase health insurance is a criminal penalty assessed to penalize a lawless act, then how is it that the IRS could charge such a penalty without first gaining a conviction of the subject? Criminal penalties are assessed after due process is served, that is, either after a subject has been convicted or plead guilty. The excise tax charged for not purchasing health insurance in the proposed legislation does not function this way, however. The penalty tax for failing to purchase health insurance is assessed by the IRS automatically, and without any criminal proceedings. There is no court, no judge, nor a jury involved in assessing the penalty.

The reason is simple: It isn't a criminal penalty. It is a tax. You don't have to be convicted of anything to be charged a tax.

The criminal proceedings don't begin until after a subject has failed to pay the penalty tax that has been charged by the IRS. At that point, the subject would be charged with tax evasion and slapped with a $250,000 fine and 5 years in federal prison.

Once again, the act of not purchasing health insurance is not the crime. The crime, in the case of the proposed health reform legislation, is the failure to pay the TAX that one is charged if one fails to purchase health insurance. If it were a penalty for a lawless act, then the penalty could only be assessed after an individual that has failed to purchase health insurance has been formally charged with a crime and convicted of said crime. This is not how the proposed legislation works, however. Even under the proposed legislation, the failure to purchase health insurance is not a crime. If the bill does not define the failure to purchase health insurance as a crime, then the penalty assessed for failing to purchase health insurance cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a criminal penalty for a lawless act.You really need to actually read the proposed legislation in order to properly discuss it. It is clear that you have not read it.dkrustyklown

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]Once again, the act of not purchasing health insurance is not the crime. The crime, in the case of the proposed health reform legislation, is the failure to pay the TAX that one is charged if one fails to purchase health insurance. If it were a penalty for a lawless act, then the penalty could only be assessed after an individual that has failed to purchase health insurance has been formally charged with a crime and convicted of said crime. This is not how the proposed legislation works, however. Even under the proposed legislation, the failure to purchase health insurance is not a crime. If the bill does not define the failure to purchase health insurance as a crime, then the penalty assessed for failing to purchase health insurance cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a criminal penalty for a lawless act.You really need to actually read the proposed legislation in order to properly discuss it. It is clear that you have not read it.Vandalvideo

Criminal fines require a conviction or a guilty plea in a court of law. The excise tax for failing to purchase health insurance in the proposed legislation does not require a conviction or a guilty plea in order to be assessed by the IRS.

This makes it a tax.

That's right they cannot Constitutionally do that but they try to. It is up to the people to rise up and say no.blackregiment

That's right, the government cannot establish a national religion. By the way the majority of laws are attempts to legislate morality or permit immorality.

No, if the people consider them unjust, they elect representatives that will change those unjust laws.

The function of the Judiciary, at the lower lever is to objectively follow the law, and the Constitution, not legislate from the bench.

Your example shows several things, First that the law professor does not know much about the Bible. Second, that he is ripping verses out of context. Third, it is a poor example because it presents a scenario where no law has been passed and the Judge is acting both as a legislator and a Judge. This is one of our major problem today, legislating from the bench. Finally, he makes no mention of any sort of Constitution that is the guide that is the umbrella under which the rule of law must function. You seem to favor legislating from the bench. This is one thing tat the Founders warned against, and over reaching Judiciary.

Now I will give you an example. There was a case in NY, I believe where a grandson blew his grandmother away with a shotgun. He was sentenced to life in prison. While in prison, he filed suit to collect his share of the inheritance. The Judge looked at the inheritance law and ruled that since the inheritance law did not specifically address or prohibit a person that had killed the person he was attempting to get an inheritance from, the lawsuit could proceed. This is the kind of nonsense that happens under legal positivism, when morality is separated from the law.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I was not bound by the laws of the land. The entirety of the legal system of western civilization and America in specific is rooted in natural law. Those that want to separate morality from the law, common sense based on right and wrong, rooted in God's higher law, and true justice, and supplant it with moral relativism, have infected our legal system with legal positivism. Under legal positivism, the atrocities of the Nazi's, coded in their law, disregarding God's higher law, cannot be condemned under the theory of legal positivism.

Criminal fines require a conviction or a guilty plea in a court of law. The excise tax for failing to purchase health insurance in the proposed legislation does not require a conviction or a guilty plea in order to be assessed by the IRS.This makes it a tax.dkrustyklown