Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Can Washington Make You Buy Health Insurance?

Submitted by JeffD on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 13:39
in
0 votes

by William Murchison

Yes, yes, says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Congress has the power to make everyone buy health insurance. “I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity” of comments to the contrary.

Thank you, Mr. Justice Gibbs. We’ll see about all that when—if —the matter of Congress’ power over private commercial judgments of this nature gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile the knock-down, drag-out over health insurance “reform” shouldn’t be allowed to fuzz up another immensely vital question; to wit, how in James Madison’s name have we reached the point that Congress can so much as contemplate telling you, and you, and you, and all of us that we’ll buy health insurance, like it or not, Buster? Why do we have to? Because the government says so, isn’t that reason enough?

For Mr. Justice Gibbs, and the people who employ him, it is. Just about anything Congress decides to do in the name of uplift seems to be constitutional: In other words, in accord with written stipulations as to what the national government may and may not do.

Several problems arise concerning this fine theory:

—It’s nonsense. It contravenes the whole constitutional concept of divided powers: particular functions reserved to particular branches of government. And other powers divided between states and the national government.

—It threatens liberty. A government that knows no limits to its power can be counted on to step more and more heavily on citizens’ rights and privileges. All for the “general good” naturally!

—It divides the citizens. On the one hand, those who want particular favors from government; on the other hand, those who deny that government has the right to dispense such favors.

Continued - http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/11/03/can-w...

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gibbs is a liar and the whitehouse knows it

Submitted by republic on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 14:23.

"It will contribute to the elucidation of the question if we first consider the differences between the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs. That there are differences between them, and that these differences are fundamental, may not be doubted.

The two classes of powers are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except [299 U.S. 304, 316] those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the states such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the federal government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the states. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 294 , 56 S.Ct. 855, 865. That this doctrine applies only to powers which the states had is self-evident."

-- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)

"But the authority of legislation in the state government is not unlimited; there are several limitations to their legislative authority. First, from the
nature of all government, especially, of republican government, in which the residuary powers of sovereignty, not granted specifically, by inevitable implication, are reserved to the people. Secondly, from the express limitations contained in the state constitutions. And thirdly, from the express prohibitions to the states contained in the United States constitution."

-- M'Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316, 1819 WL 2135 (U.S.,1819)

This same case admits that the national government is limited in its powers, however not is such a concise manner.

"The power of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States, is one of the specified powers of congress."

-- M'Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316, 1819 WL 2135 (U.S.,1819)

Now if Gibbs were to say that congress could mandate those who are residing in the territories, I would say he has a little more standing, however even that assertion runs into limitations placed on the powers of congress with respect to the territories by the North West Ordinance. Congress may not impair private contracts or engagements which have been formed prior to legislation. To say that the engagement of not having insurance is unprotected by this clause is to deny equal protection. All those presently alive would be grandfathered out of the law, making it pretty impotent.

republic

This article misses one of

Submitted by JBPT on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 14:11.

This article misses one of the most fundamental aspects of this issue.

It's a complete violation of contract law. Specifically it forces people against their will to sign a contract which is what an insurance policy is.

Does this make sense?

Submitted by jennbran4life on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 13:57.

No Doctor No Pay regardless what they say!