[ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie Apocalypse!)
spike66 at att.net
Wed Oct 16 15:39:16 UTC 2013
>. On Behalf Of Omar Rahman
Subject: Re: [ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie Apocalypse!)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:51:36 -0700
From: "spike" < <mailto:spike66 at att.net> spike66 at att.net>
>>.The government cannot order its citizens to do something.
It can only order us to not do something. The Supreme Court court decided
the constitution does allow the individual mandate if the penalty for not
buying insurance is declared a tax.
>.The government can and does have the power to order it's citizens to do
Only by specific authority from the constitution. Read on please.
>. For example we must provide education to our children either in schools
or through homeschooling.
The federal government cannot and does not command its citizens to education
their children, the state governments do. The Federal government empowers
and requires state governments to provide public education. State
governments can and do require its citizens to educate their children in
some fashion. In some states, such as Idaho, it is almost just a mere
formality, this state being extremely open-minded on what constitutes home
schooling. The federal constitution says not a word about education.
>. It used to issue draft notices.
Ja, this is a power specifically enumerated in the constitution, article 1,
section 8, clause 12: "Congress has the power to raise and support armies."
>.Oh, car insurance is another one that comes to mind due to relevance.
Car insurance is required by state governments. The US constitution has not
one word in there about cars or insurance.
There has never been a serious attempt to insert a car insurance requirement
into the constitution. Likewise with drivers' licenses. Some states are
issuing them to illegal immigrants. They are asking the Fed to make other
states recognize those licenses, but the Fed cannot do that, for the
constitution does not allow them that authority. So some states recognize
drivers licenses of illegals from other states and some do not. Likewise
with same-sex marriage: the Fed cannot order all states to recognize those
marriage contracts made in states where it is allowed: the constitution does
not contain the words sex or marriage.
I do confess I would be entertained by any attempt to add an amendment
covering those. Would they try to imitate Jeffersonian English? How would
they define cars? As a teenager I used to drive a conveyance that might
challenge attempts at definition. Legally defining a conveyance is more
difficult than it sounds. How would they define gender? Could we see terms
for specific organs mentioned in the constitution? This should be
>. There are probably lots more examples but these two will suffice.
Omar, I will stand by and wait patiently for those examples. But your point
is well taken and refuted thus: the Federal government has many clear
restrictions on its power imposed by a constitution which was carefully and
brilliantly designed by those who knew a lot about what power does to
people, having fresh experience with European tyrants. The constitution
relies heavily on state governments, and is codified by the last (but
certainly not least) of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, amendment 10:
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.'
Bravo! Excellent work, my founding fathers!
In order for the federal government to legally order the citizen to do
anything requires a specific amendment or power specifically enumerated in
the constitution, examples being payment of income tax (16th amendment) and
the draft (A1S8c12.) My argument from the start is if the Fed wants an
individual mandate, it must first get a constitutional amendment granting it
the specific authority to do that. I still think they should do that as
The reason this is so relevant to our day is that if you have fifty
competing governments, somewhere in that bunch is a government which does
things most to your liking. I choose California, warts and all. We all get
to choose our favorite government, and we as American citizens have the
right to immigrate into any of those fifty states, to choose our favorite
government. We do not have the right to go to any country in the world. We
can make arrangements for any country if we have a ton of money of course,
universal rule. But we have the right to choose any state in the US,
regardless of our ability to pay.
I recognize the argument that having 50 governments is not more efficient
than having one, but that argument is irrelevant, for the constitution does
not contain the term efficient, and the US government has certainly
demonstrated that it does not know the definition of the term.
>.I'm sure that somehow it is ironic that the members of Congress, even
radical Tea Party people I assume, have the government funded health care
that they are so afraid of.
That's the current fight. The irony is that congressional proponents of
ObamaCare want to make sure congress is exempt from it. Congressional
opponents of ObamaCare are arguing that congress should be subject to the
rules they impose on the proletariat. Which sounds right to you? Ja, me
too. Make congress eat the same turd sandwich they serve up to the rest of
>. Why would you personally Spike pass a bill that took away your government
funded health care so that you could get government funded health care? It
seems quite logical to strip that nonsensical provision from the bill.
Regards, Omar Rahman
Omar, this is a common misperception. ObamaCare really isn't government
funded health care. It is tax-incentivized buy-in to the health insurance
system (which is legal) coupled with a pile of restrictions on the health
insurance industry's rate and payout structure (which probably is not legal
and certainly not workable as written) along with a couple thousand pages of
legislation which never should have been tacked on to this bill.
Omar, what this is really all about is far more than health care. The
ObamaCare law as written gives the federal government powers that appear to
be outside the rigid bounds of the constitution. Some are comfortable with
that, but I am not. They should have gotten an open-ended constitutional
amendment first, such as our 16th amendment, which created the IRS.
Perhaps a still larger objection is that I can see the law as written will
not and cannot succeed. It relies too heavily on young and healthy people
buying and overpaying for health insurance. I predict that they will opt
out in perfect unison and pay the tax penalty (which isn't much) then come
crawling back if they get sick. From the insurance company's point of view,
it would be the high school track team running the other way and the zombie
horde from Thriller staggering inbound with huge medical bills in their
rotting hands. Any young and healthy who buys in, I wouldn't trust them.
The system cannot succeed without them. I personally would benefit greatly
if they all came in and paid, for they subsidize my health insurance costs.
I personally reap great benefits if it works. But it will not.
ObamaCare is the most poorly designed piece of legislation in American
history, utterly without exception. It was never properly debated on the
floor of the Senate and is full of obvious flaws, such as the one cited
above: the government imposes on the insurance companies a rate structure.
The only person in government who has read the whole thing is Ted Cruz, the
man who railed against it for over 20 hours and was just getting warmed up.
His so-called filibuster is the bulk of the public debate on the topic. I
think we need to start all over with a clean sheet of paper.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat