Missouri votes NO on Obamacare, 71% to 29 %

[Little-Acorn]

Many states have already enacted legislation preventing the Federal govt from imposing penalties on state residents who refused to sign up for Obamacare. But Missouri is the first state (more are scheduled in November) to put the issue on a statewaide ballot initiative... and the people voted a resounding NO to Obamacare's commands that they support it.

Federal law usually pre-empts state law, of course. But only where the Constitution authorizes the Fed to make that particular law. Unfortunately for the Obamacare fanatics, there is nothing the the Constitution that gives the Fed govt any power to impose such socialized medicine on the American people.

-------------------------------------

http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell/...unity_to_revisit_Commerce_Clause.html?ref=399

Challenges to ObamaCare might be opportunity to revisit Commerce Clause

Posted by Thomas Mitchell
Wednesday, Aug. 04, 2010 at 07:44 AM

Missouri state Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, left, gathers with supporters of Missouri's Proposition C to watch election results Tuesday. Prop C prohibits governments from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for paying health bills entirely with their own money. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

"The state governments have a full superintendence and control over the immense mass of local interests of their respective states, which connect themselves with the feelings, the affections, the municipal institutions, and the internal arrangements of the whole population. They possess, too, the immediate administration of justice in all cases, civil and criminal, which concern the property, personal rights, and peaceful pursuits of their own citizens."
—Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Missouri voters just said no.

By an overwhelming majority of 71 percent the voters rejected the federal health care reform bill requirement that people purchase health insurance or face a stiff fine.

"I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," The Associated Press quoted Mike Sampson of Jefferson City as saying. “My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."

The action of a simple majority of 535 delegates cloistered in Foggy Bottom trumps the supermajority vote of the citizens of an entire state? That hardly fits the definition of federalism, but it may currently be the law of the land.

In a case out of California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled federal drug laws take precedent over the vote of the people to allow citizens to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes.

But Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in that case revealed just how silly it is for the court to maintain that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do so. “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers,” he wrote.

Also dissenting in that case was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who chose to quote from Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 45. “We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: ‘The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State,’” she wrote.

The Missouri vote and the various lawsuits against ObamaCare might well give the court an opportunity to revisit some overreaching in previous rulings that gave entirely too much power to Congress under the guise of the Commerce Clause.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

thats nice...to bad that means nothing as states can't vote to not fallow federal laws. Whats next Texas votes to not pay taxes? Maybe Alabama can vote to have slavery again...

 

[Pandora]

thats nice...to bad that means nothing as states can't vote to not fallow federal laws. Whats next Texas votes to not pay taxes? Maybe Alabama can vote to have slavery again...

Where in the constitution does it say that the feds have a right to force all americans to buy a product?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Where in the constitution does it say that the feds have a right to force all americans to buy a product?

already been over that many times...in fact just did in a diff thread today...not going to do it over and over.

 

[Pandora]

already been over that many times...in fact just did in a diff thread today...not going to do it over and over.

I just checked what I think is the other thread you are talking about
where you say the feds make you pay into SS


Adults who choose to work do pay into SS. Every American like it or not does not pay into SS, some never pay into it.

The health care bill forces every single American to buy a product. There is no place in the constitution that gives the feds that right.

We have to have a drivers lic. and insurance, tags exc to have the priv. to drive a car but not every American is forced to buy car insurance or tags.

You know this is different but you dont care....
To quote a quack on the boards,

facts be damned

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I just checked what I think is the other thread you are talking about
where you say the feds make you pay into SS


Adults who choose to work do pay into SS. Every American like it or not does not pay into SS, some never pay into it.

The health care bill forces every single American to buy a product. There is no place in the constitution that gives the feds that right.

We have to have a drivers lic. and insurance, tags exc to have the priv. to drive a car but not every American is forced to buy car insurance or tags.

You know this is different but you dont care....
To quote a quack on the boards,

facts be damned

sorry under that idea, not evryone has to buy health care as well...you can get waivers, and also if your poor, the goverment buys it bascly...

Fact is before evryone had health care and if you paid taxes, you paid for evryones health care....just when it was the most costly.

I had no health care for 5 years as both my jobs would not offer it...had I got very sick, and got care, the cost would be paid for...by evryone else...you where forced to pay for my health care, not even your own...but your ok with that system

also most states say you have to buy insurance so drive...but don't here anyone cry about that.

 

[Pandora]

also most states say you have to buy insurance so drive...but don't here anyone cry about that.

Yeah, that is what I said in my post

IF you are a driver then you must have insurance.

People who walk or ride a bike or take a bus do NOT have to have insurance

 

[Pandora]

sorry under that idea, not evryone has to buy health care as well...you can get waivers, and also if your poor, the goverment buys it bascly...

Fact is before evryone had health care and if you paid taxes, you paid for evryones health care....just when it was the most costly.

I had no health care for 5 years as both my jobs would not offer it...had I got very sick, and got care, the cost would be paid for...by evryone else...you where forced to pay for my health care, not even your own...but your ok with that system

also most states say you have to buy insurance so drive...but don't here anyone cry about that.

Yes everyone will have to buy healthcare insurance or face jail/fines
after you prove you are poor they claim they will buy it for you with other peoples money

sorry that you picked jobs with no insurance but that is hardly my problem and because you pick stupid jobs still does not give the government a right to force me to buy insurance.

I already have insurance through my work that I have to pay for but I never use. That is legal because I am dumb enough to stay with a company who forces me to buy insurance as part of my employment contract.

I can quit that job if I want and take another that doesnt bill me for insurance. Once this obamacare passes I will not be able to just say no I do not want insurance, I dont use it I dont want to pay for it.

So I say again, there is no place in the constitution that gives the feds the right to force all Americans to buy a product period.

 

[Gipper]

I guess libs believe what this fool said...Dem Congressman Lil' Pete Stark.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I just checked what I think is the other thread you are talking about
where you say the feds make you pay into SS


Adults who choose to work do pay into SS. Every American like it or not does not pay into SS, some never pay into it.

When SS was first imposed on Americans, it was taken to court, of course. It was on the verge of being declared unconstitutional, when the Feds decided they could protect it by lying about it: They announced that it was NOT a retirement-assistance programs, but simply a tax. And the Fed govt does have the power to levy and collect taxes. So the Supreme Court found that it was legal... as a tax.

Fast forward to 2010. Remember the Obamanites constantly screaming that no one who made less than $250,000/year, would have ANY tax raised while he was in office? It was one of the promises that got him elected. When people pointed out that the money they were being forced to pay for Obamacare violated that promise, The Obamanites smoothly reassured us that this money was not a tax, but a fee or penalty on people who did not sign up. And so taxes were NOT being raised, they told us.

Now several states (Virginia is one of them) are suing in court, saying that the Obamanites have no authority under the Constitution to run a medical program, and especially to force people to pay if they didn't sign up. The Obamanites' response? Why, this money is not a fee or penalty... it's a TAX! Which the Fed is certainly authorized to levy.

Yes, this is actually happening, even as we speak. The Obamanites are counting on us to not notice the astounding doublethink they must employ to present such a case, with straight faces.

The bad news for the Obamanites is, 71% of Missouri voters DID notice it, and said so yesterday.

You have to wonder about the other 29%.......

 

[Pandora]

When SS was first imposed on Americans, it was taken to court, of course. It was on the verge of being declared unconstitutional, when the Feds decided they could protect it by lying about it: They announced that it was NOT a retirement-assistance programs, but simply a tax. And the Fed govt does have the power to levy and collect taxes. So the Supreme Court found that it was legal... as a tax.

Fast forward to 2010. Remember the Obamanites constantly screaming that no one who made less than $250,000/year, would have ANY tax raised while he was in office? It was one of the promises that got him elected. When people pointed out that the money they were being forced to pay for Obamacare violated that promise, The Obamanites smoothly reassured us that this money was not a tax, but a fee or penalty on people who did not sign up. And so taxes were NOT being raised, they told us.

Now several states (Virginia is one of them) are suing in court, saying that the Obamanites have no authority under the Constitution to run a medical program, and especially to force people to pay if they didn't sign up. The Obamanites' response? Why, this money is not a fee or penalty... it's a TAX! Which the Fed is certainly authorized to levy.

Yes, this is actually happening, even as we speak. The Obamanites are counting on us to not notice the astounding doublethink they must employ to present such a case, with straight faces.

The bad news for the Obamanites is, 71% of Missouri voters DID notice it, and said so yesterday.

You have to wonder about the other 29%.......

Thank you for explaining that for me, if they call it a tax then I suppose it will be deemed constitutional and that really sucks.

I wonder about those 29% also, they have to be complete idiots!

I remember seeing my mothers SS card and on the back it said NOT TO BE USED FOR ID

they took that off by the time I got mine, and now (unless you are illegal) its a must have for ID.

I hate the government, every iota of the government If we want our freedom we are going to have to kill the government.

 

[Pandora]

sorry under that idea, not evryone has to buy health care as well...you can get waivers, and also if your poor, the goverment buys it bascly...

Fact is before evryone had health care and if you paid taxes, you paid for evryones health care....just when it was the most costly.

I had no health care for 5 years as both my jobs would not offer it...had I got very sick, and got care, the cost would be paid for...by evryone else...you where forced to pay for my health care, not even your own...but your ok with that system

also most states say you have to buy insurance so drive...but don't here anyone cry about that.

OK Pocket you win, after reading Little Acorn's post I agree with you that its constitutional. If obama calls it a tax then the all mighty feds have a right to burden us with it.

I am big enough to admit you are right here, are you big enough to admit your savior is a frakin liar who is indeed raising and adding taxes on the people he said he would not do this to?

Some how, I bet not

 

[Little-Acorn]

I said the Obamanites were claiming in court now, that the fines for nonparticipation were a "tax".

I didn't say they were right about it.

Such a "tax" if that's what it is, would be unconstitutional on its face. (And if it isn't a tax, it's just as unconstitutional, for other reasons.)

The Const requires that all Federal personal taxes are either (a) Taxes on income (16th amendment), or (b) capitation taxes, which must be levied evenly across the population. This Obamacare "tax" is neither: It is imposed only on people who do not sign up for Obamacare.

Unless, of course, the Obamanites are trying to tell us that EVERYONE will refuse to sign up, thus making this penalty a "tax applied evenly across the population".

--------------------------------------------------

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/20...dmits-obamacares-individual-mandate-is-a-tax/

Morning Bell: White House Admits Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is a Tax

Posted July 20th, 2010 at 8:56am

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax.

But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year.

Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity.

If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.

But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?

 

[Pandora]

I said the Obamanites were claiming in court now, that the fines for nonparticipation were a "tax".

I didn't say they were right about it.

Such a "tax" if that's what it is, would be unconstitutional on its face. (And if it isn't a tax, it's just as unconstitutional, for other reasons.)

The Const requires that all Federal personal taxes are either (a) Taxes on income (16th amendment), or (b) capitation taxes, which must be levied evenly across the population. This Obamacare "tax" is neither: It is imposed only on people who do not sign up for Obamacare.

Unless, of course, the Obamanites are trying to tell us that EVERYONE will refuse to sign up, thus making this penalty a "tax applied evenly across the population".

--------------------------------------------------

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/20...dmits-obamacares-individual-mandate-is-a-tax/

Morning Bell: White House Admits Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is a Tax

Posted July 20th, 2010 at 8:56am

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax.

But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year.

Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity.

If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.

But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?

well its a fine and or jail if you don't buy the insurance, that is one fee or what ever you want to call it.

But if every American is forced to buy it then it seems if they supply the horrid health care then say everyone pays x ,y or z in a tax to cover it then it would seem similar enough to other taxes. I still think its wrong but that does seem close enough to existing taxes except the part that all Americans are forced to participate unlike other taxes

 

[bododie]

thats nice...to bad that means nothing as states can't vote to not fallow federal laws

Like medical marijuana in California? Can't buck the feds like that? Lol.