Yes, Federal law trumps State - unless the Fed law is unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

Many threads have wondered if the States can refuse to participate in the new Federal Socialized Medicine program. Specifically, can states make laws saying no citizen of that state can be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or fined if they refuse to buy it?

Normally, no. If the Fed makes a law saying that everyone with an income of $50,000/yr must pay Federal Income Taxes of $6,000, then no state can make a law saying that state's citizens only have to pay a Fed income tax of $2,000. Because the Fed is authorized by the Constitution to levy that tax in that way if it wants. (And boy, does it want!). See Article 6, Para. 2 of the Constitution.

But if the Fed makes a law saying that everybody must buy a Ford for their next car, or must buy, say, Health insurance whether they like it or not, or else pay the Fed a fine if they don't... that law is unconstitutional, since the Const gives the Fed no such authority to make those laws. Arguments about the Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause have long been debunked. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that any law that is contrary to the Constitution, is null and void - it is no law at all.

 

[chestnut]

Many threads have wondered if the States can refuse to participate in the new Federal Socialized Medicine program. Specifically, can states make laws saying no citizen of that state can be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or fined if they refuse to buy it?

Normally, no. If the Fed makes a law saying that everyone with an income of $50,000/yr must pay Federal Income Taxes of $6,000, then no state can make a law saying that state's citizens only have to pay a Fed income tax of $2,000. Because the Fed is authorized by the Constitution to levy that tax in that way if it wants. (And boy, does it want!). See Article 6, Para. 2 of the Constitution.

But if the Fed makes a law saying that everybody must buy a Ford for their next car, or must buy, say, Health insurance whether they like it or not, or else pay the Fed a fine if they don't... that law is unconstitutional, since the Const gives the Fed no such authority to make those laws. Arguments about the Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause have long been debunked. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that any law that is contrary to the Constitution, is null and void - it is no law at all.

The problem is going to be this.

If the Supreme Court decides that it is legal for the Govt to force individuals to purcase something against their will, it will set a precedent.

We will be forced to buy anything they say we need.

Maybe a new car every 2 yrs. How about a mohawk hair cut.

Where does it end.?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The problem is going to be this.

If the Supreme Court decides that it is legal for the Govt to force individuals to purcase something against their will, it will set a precedent.

We will be forced to buy anything they say we need.

Maybe a new car every 2 yrs. How about a mohawk hair cut.

Where does it end.?

That's exactly what the liberal extremists would like, of coourse. They seem to feel they can make better decisions on how to run our lives, than we can ourselves.

Given their track record, it's hard to see how their blinders could possibly be thick enough to keep thinking that.

 

[Devil505]

It'll be worded as a tax...& taxes are constitutional. (what you pay for insurance will be given back as a tax credit......All nice & legal & quite normal)

 

[Little-Acorn]

It'll be worded as a tax...& taxes are constitutional.

But fines "worded as a tax" are not. Because they are still fines.

Among other unconstitutional characteristics, the new Socialized Medicine act is a Bill of Attainder.

 

[Devil505]

But fines "worded as a tax" are not. Because they are still fines.

Among other unconstitutional characteristics, the new Socialized Medicine act is a Bill of Attainder.

I was an IRS Revenue Officer for over 12 years & there are many penalties the IRS charges that are quite legal. Failure to File , Failure to Pay are both penalties that are assessed over & above interest. (Unless you are a Supreme Court justice, your opinion (as is mine) is meaningless anyway)

Bottom line is how popular do you think this will be with the public to try to take away grandma's $250.00 rebate check for the "donut hole", allowing insurance companies to drop sick policy holders & keeping sick children from getting medical care to increase profits. You guys have painted yourselves into a corner (with your insurance company owners) AGAINST the average working American.
If you GOP types aren't ashamed of yourselves......We American voters are!

Christians.......My Ass!!

 

[AtheismIsReality]

But fines "worded as a tax" are not. Because they are still fines.

Among other unconstitutional characteristics, the new Socialized Medicine act is a Bill of Attainder.

Look up Bill of Attainder.

And if you were so concerned with Congress not issuing them, I'll await your defense of ACORN's funding as it was removed as punishment without due process.

You're on the clock.