HuffPost: Fox News Pulls Sean Hannity From Tea Party Rally

[Henry]

Well, actually, it's Constitutional for Congress to lay taxes for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated powers.

They can collect taxes to provide for the common defense.

But not for establishing a state religion.

(Then again, I suspect that you knew that.)

... AND general welfare.

I keep hearing this bill is unconstitutional. My question is, why?

Certainly not the laying of taxes to provide for the general welfare. That's the very first legislative power listed in the constitution.

I'm not saying I like the law and I'm not trying to be snide. I really do want more information. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a very serious charge, and it concerns me.

So what, specifically, is unconstitutional about it?

[ACW]

Hannity's a Repub whore.

[Larry]

... AND general welfare.

I keep hearing this bill is unconstitutional. My question is, why?

Certainly not the laying of taxes to provide for the general welfare. That's the very first legislative power listed in the constitution.

I'm not saying I like the law and I'm not trying to be snide. I really do want more information. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a very serious charge, and it concerns me.

So what, specifically, is unconstitutional about it?

It's a fairly common way of arguing. (And no doubt used by "both sides".)

When the subject is a law I don't like, then the exact words I demand must appear in the enumerated powers, or the law is unconstitutional.

However, when it's a law I like, and we're running up against one of the Constitution's "thou shalt not"s, then, suddenly, the exact language I demand must be prohibited, or else that prohibition doesn't apply to this law.

[Larry]

Hannity's a Repub whore.

Now, now. Hannity is unbiased and neutral. Why, in that clip that was just posted, he's attacking a Republican.

(Granted, he's attacking a Republican for daring to point out that a Republican Talking Point isn't true. And he's doing it by lying. But hey, he's attacking a Republican.)

[Chicken Fried]

... AND general welfare.

I keep hearing this bill is unconstitutional. My question is, why?

Certainly not the laying of taxes to provide for the general welfare. That's the very first legislative power listed in the constitution.

I'm not saying I like the law and I'm not trying to be snide. I really do want more information. Declaring a law unconstitutional is a very serious charge, and it concerns me.

So what, specifically, is unconstitutional about it?

http://www.examiner.com/x-6428-Baltimore-Legal-News-Examiner~y2010m3d27-Why-the-healthcare-bill-is-unconstitutional

The individual mandate in the bill requires that all individuals purchase health insurance or face civil and criminal penalties.

The Constitution provides enumerated powers to the Federal Government, and reserves the rest of governmental powers to the states in the 10th Amendment.

Supporters of the Democrats’ health care bill have incorrectly contended that the individual mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause.

The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the individual mandate because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance. Lack of commerce is not analogous to commerce. The federal government cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce.

The bill’s individual mandate is not authorized under the General Welfare Clause, which applies only to congressional spending. It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause

Further, the individual mandate is not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall under any of those categories.

When proponents of the individual mandate run out of foundational constitutional principals to cite for substantiation, the discussion inevitably reverts to the comparison between the individual mandate and drivers being required to purchase automobile insurance.

First, the federal government does not (and, cannot) mandate that individuals purchase car insurance, for reasons delineated above. Only the states have mandated individually that all drivers must purchase car insurance.

Second, states only mandate that individuals purchase liability insurance—that is, insurance that indemnifies claims of personal injury or property damage of another non-at-fault party. So, societal welfare is the interest of the car insurance mandate. Protecting others from your negligence is not the same as forcing you to protect yourself, as the individual mandate does.

Lastly, a person has a choice whether or not to personally operate an automobile on the public roadways. There are viable options, such as public transportation, for those who do not wish to be forced to enter into a contract. A person does not have a choice whether to be born and reach the age of majority, the age that an individual would be forced to buy health insurance.

[Chicken Fried]

My government taxes me more because I'm not married.

They tax me more because I don't have kids.

The tax code has tax deductions for straight, married, couples, that gay, married, couples can't use.

My parents pay higher taxes because their house is paid for.

Is the government Unconstitutionally forcing people to be straight, get married, buy a house (and not only to buy a house, but they must do so on credit), and have kids?

No opinion, really. I stand for lower taxes for everyone.

Well, gee, the search function worked. Once. Here's what I get from this very forum on the words insurance and jail.

(Well, those were the relevant ones. There were a bunch of others that weren't on this topic, or were people responding to those two posts.)

Unfortunately, attempting to search on any other combination of words gets me a white screen.

Google, however, finds some other hits. Like this entire thread, titled

Politico: 1 year or $25,000 penalty for not buying insurance?

And this one:

Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail

(Whew! For a second there I thought that every hit I got was going to be from the same poster.)

I'm stopping, now, because I'm on Google's page 10, and that's only for the words insurance and jail.

But somehow I think I've proven my point that no, I'm not just making this up.

Awaiting your apology.

You cited a Politico article and an unnamed source saying it's possible to be jailed for not buying healthcare. Weren't you arguing that it's not a fear based in reality?

Well, now I know that it's a fear of many conservatives. I'd never heard it before, though. Now I have. The vast majority, however, are still primarily focused on the Constitutional question. Nobody I knows is really worried about jail time for not buying healthcare. We focus on the Constitutionality of the bill.

[mistertim]

No opinion, really. I stand for lower taxes for everyone.

You cited a Politico article and an unnamed source saying it's possible to be jailed for not buying healthcare. Weren't you arguing that it's not a fear based in reality?

Well, now I know that it's a fear of many conservatives. I'd never heard it before, though. Now I have. The vast majority, however, are still primarily focused on the Constitutional question. Nobody I knows is really worried about jail time for not buying healthcare. We focus on the Constitutionality of the bill.

Which specific part of the bill...specific...do you think is not constitutional? The gov't taxing is certainly not unconstitutional.

[Henry]

The bill’s individual mandate is not authorized under the General Welfare Clause, which applies only to congressional spending. It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause

I keep hearing 'point out where so-and-so is in the constitution.'

So can someone point out where The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States specifies money going out or in?

Or is that merely an interpretation of this clause?

Is the government Unconstitutionally forcing people to be straight, get married, buy a house (and not only to buy a house, but they must do so on credit), and have kids?

No opinion, really. I stand for lower taxes for everyone.

Well, if you are going to rail against a law by questioning it's constitutionality, it would probably be best for formulate opinions on laws that set similar precedent. Lower taxes and constitutional legitimacy are two separate issues. I wish my taxes were lower. That's a far, far ... far cry from me suggesting that my taxes are unconstitutional.

Like I said, I don't know if this law is a good idea or not, but we aren't talking good idea here. We are talking constitutionality.

Well, now I know that it's a fear of many conservatives. I'd never heard it before, though. Now I have. The vast majority, however, are still primarily focused on the Constitutional question. Nobody I knows is really worried about jail time for not buying healthcare. We focus on the Constitutionality of the bill.

I think you have heard it before, actually. From the article you just linked:

The individual mandate in the bill requires that all individuals purchase health insurance or face civil and criminal penalties.

[Chicken Fried]

Which specific part of the bill...specific...do you think is not constitutional? The gov't taxing is certainly not unconstitutional.

The mandate. See post #80.

Also, but less, the fact that the government is really milking the commerce clause for all it's worth by running healthcare itself. Of course, you can't prove it right and you can't prove it wrong. It depends on whether you have a strict or loose constructionist in office.

[PokerPacker]

so because government taxing is in the constitution, then taxing can be used however the government sees fit? How about a tax on all adults who do not join a political party? how about a tax on those who choose not to attend church? how about a tax on people who don't buy new cars?

[Chicken Fried]

I keep hearing 'point out where so-and-so is in the constitution.'

So can someone point out where The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States specifies money going out or in?

Or is that merely an interpretation of this clause?

Commerce clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

General Welfare Clause - Article 1, Section 8

Taxing and Spending Clause - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Well, if you are going to rail against a law by questioning it's constitutionality, it would probably be best for formulate opinions on laws that set similar precedent. Lower taxes and constitutional legitimacy are two separate issues. I wish my taxes were lower. That's a far, far ... far cry from me suggesting that my taxes are unconstitutional.

I only have no opinion because I haven't thought about it. I'd probably say the government shouldn't have taxes set up like that, either. I'm not a tax expert so I don't know about all the loopholes involved. I don't know enough about that situation to really say definitively. The healthcare mandate is more cut and dry.

Like I said, I don't know if this law is a good idea or not, but we aren't talking good idea here. We are talking constitutionality.

So am I.

I think you have heard it before, actually. From the article you just linked:

No. I just googled because I couldn't remember off the top of my head each clause that conflicted with the healthcare mandate. I've never seen that article before. And it's not like I have a set of good articles I've found saved to my computer to whip out when one of them fits a debate I'm involved in.

[Henry]

so because government taxing is in the constitution, then taxing can be used however the government sees fit? How about a tax on all adults who do not join a political party?

The government did at one time tax people who wanted to vote. It took a constitutional amendment to change that.

how about a tax on those who choose not to attend church?

I believe the first amendment covers that.

how about a tax on people who don't buy new cars?

Cash for clunkers gave tax breaks to people who did buy new cars, didn't it?

[Henry]

Commerce clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

General Welfare Clause - Article 1, Section 8

Taxing and Spending Clause - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Yeah, I quoted article 1, section 8. Where does it specify whether the money is coming in or going out?

[PokerPacker]

I believe the first amendment covers that.

Cash for clunkers gave tax breaks to people who did buy new cars, didn't it?

I find those two answers interesting when combined. It indicates that you accept a tax break for certain groups = tax hike for people not in that group. So when the government makes religious organizations tax-exempt, then in the same vein as me being taxed for not buying a new car, I'm being taxed for not being a part of a religious organization.

[Seabee1973]

I keep hearing 'point out where so-and-so is in the constitution.'

So can someone point out where The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States specifies money going out or in?

Or is that merely an interpretation of this clause?

Well, if you are going to rail against a law by questioning it's constitutionality, it would probably be best for formulate opinions on laws that set similar precedent. Lower taxes and constitutional legitimacy are two separate issues. I wish my taxes were lower. That's a far, far ... far cry from me suggesting that my taxes are unconstitutional.

Like I said, I don't know if this law is a good idea or not, but we aren't talking good idea here. We are talking constitutionality.

I think you have heard it before, actually. From the article you just linked:

So can the government make you buy a chevy truck?

[Henry]

I find those two answers interesting when combined. It indicates that you accept a tax break for certain groups = tax hike for people not in that group. So when the government makes religious organizations tax-exempt, then in the same vein as me being taxed for not buying a new car, I'm being taxed for not being a part of a religious organization.

Not exactly. Churches aren't taxed, but parishioners are.

So I guess you could say you're being taxed for not being the entire religious organization if you wanted.

The point, however, is that the government uses taxes to encourage or discourage citizens from buying or not buying, owning or not owning, doing or not doing all the time. Sometimes it's a good idea, and sometimes it's so dopey the constitution has actually been amended to prevent it in the future.

I'm just trying to figure out why this law is so different from a constitutional standpoint.

[Chicken Fried]

Yeah, I quoted article 1, section 8. Where does it specify whether the money is coming in or going out?

It's a strict interpretation. Here's a quotation from James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution, about the General Welfare Clause:

http://americanlyyours.com/2009/12/23/how-is-the-health-care-bill-unconstitutional-let-me-count-the-ways/

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children,establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;they may assume the provision of the poor;they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police,would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

As a side rant, I found a quotation from Jim DeMint (R-SC) that I really agree with:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/demint-health-care-bill-must-be-repealed.php

"This arrogant power grab proves that the President and his party care more about government control than the will of the American people. Americans told Washington to keep its hands off their health care in opinion polls, at public protests, and at the ballot box, but their pleas were ignored.

"If the President and Democrats were serious about true health care reform, there were many free-market solutions we could have easily passed. Americans support commonsense reforms such as purchasing coverage across state lines, stopping frivolous medical lawsuits, and giving the same tax breaks to Americans who don't get their insurance at work. Unfortunately, Democrats refused to listen."

[Henry]

So can the government make you buy a chevy truck?

Will the government make you join Kaiser Permanente?

[Chicken Fried]

I'm just trying to figure out why this law is so different from a constitutional standpoint.

I'm just wondering what your thoughts are since you seem to be fairly neutral. Obviously, you are unsure about the General Welfare Clause, but what do you think about my side of the argument concerning the Commerce Clause and Taxing and Spending Clause? Have I convinced you? Just a little?

[Henry]

I'm just wondering what your thoughts are since you seem to be fairly neutral. Obviously, you are unsure about the General Welfare Clause, but what do you think about my side of the argument concerning the Commerce Clause and Taxing and Spending Clause? Have I convinced you? Just a little?

I'll be perfectly honest. I don't yet know enough about this law to know whether I like it or not. Which is why I'm not arguing whether or not I think it's a good idea.

I'm more wary of throwing the 'unconstitutional' label around though. I actually can see the point you are making. Taxing not doing something is technically different than giving a tax rebate for doing something (if that makes sense. ) I'm not sure that distinction is enough to label the law unconstitutional though. I see the spirit of the law as the same in both cases, and while some may disagree I think I need something written down in black and white to be convinced of a definite claim that the law is downright unconstitutional.

I suppose your statement that 'it's a strict interpretation' is what I looking for. I just wasn't sure if I had missed something else that was really obvious.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I read this quote and I just had to add in what is really behind the lines of what he's saying which I put in red text.

As a side rant, I found a quotation from Jim DeMint (R-SC) that I really agree with:

"This arrogant power grab [which is obviously my rhetorical blovation] proves that the President and his party care more about government control than the will of the American people [which I base on absolutely nothing except the talking points I just received from the GOP]. Americans told Washington to keep its hands off their health care in opinion polls [health care polls that stated nearly unanimously that the American public wanted a public option by nearly 60%] , at public protests, and at the ballot box [at the ballot box where they voted in a Democratic president who promised to work toward a government reform of health care, not to mention giving super majorities to the Dems in both houses], but their pleas [their being the minority of people who showed up to shout and scream at town hall meetings and those minority who didn't want health care reform] were ignored.

"If the President and Democrats were serious about true health care reform [true being read here as a GOP version of health care reform], there were many free-market solutions we could have easily passed [because we all know that as the GOP we weren't going to agree to anything else, because we're gonna get huge amounts of money from the insurance lobby if we kill this bill]. Americans support commonsense reforms such as purchasing coverage across state lines [i'm obviously ignoring the fact that this law now allows for this] , stopping frivolous medical lawsuits [because my talking points tell me that tort reform is going to save health care even though reality shows that it won't], and giving the same tax breaks to Americans who don't get their insurance at work [because the GOP is all about tax breaks for the rich and forcing the poor to carry the tax burden]. Unfortunately, Democrats refused to listen [to our same old tired and worn ideas which we put forward but never really truly expected to be taken seriously because our whole objective in this health care reform process was to kill the bill from the very beginning, because we don't care about health reform we really only care about the 2010 and 2012 elections and if we could have stopped Obama from getting this health reform bill through we would have made sure that Obama's presidency went for the next three years with a major limp."]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/demint-health-care-bill-must-be-repealed.php

[PokerPacker]

Not exactly. Churches aren't taxed, but parishioners are.

So I guess you could say you're being taxed for not being the entire religious organization if you wanted.

Well its that I'm being taxed based on my sunday activity. Those who go to church have their Sunday activity funded through the tax-exemption of the church. Me, I spend my Sundays playing hockey. I have to pay money to play hockey, and that activity is taxed, which means those who choose to spend the day in church are having their Sunday activity subsidized by myself, who spends the day on the ice.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

I'll do the same...

I read this quote and I just had to add in what is really behind the lines of what he's saying which I put in red text.

This arrogant power grab [which is obviously my rhetorical blovation] [irony much? If you're going to play Jumbo and use words like "bloviation", then be like Jumbo by using and spelling them correctly]] proves that the President and his party care more about government control than the will of the American people [which I base on absolutely nothing except the talking points I just received from the GOP] [i think he makes his point clear, the President ignored polls and sat down with harry reid to force his agenda, he only included nancy pelosi and the House when MASSACHUSETTS voted in a republican[/color].] Americans told Washington to keep its hands off their health care in opinion polls [health care polls that stated nearly unanimously that the American public wanted a public option by nearly 60%] [well, that's just a lie. Plain and simple.] , at public protests, and at the ballot box [at the ballot box where they voted in a Democratic president who promised to work toward a government reform of health care, not to mention giving super majorities to the Dems in both houses] [another liberal, another fabrication. voters clearly stated their top issue was the war and economy. President Obama addressed this by keeping President Bush's secretary of defense and by a 790 billion dollar stimulus.] but their pleas [their being the minority of people who showed up to shout and scream at town hall meetings [let's not forget the ballot box] and those minority who didn't want health care reform] [again, refuse the polls as you wish] were ignored.

"If the President and Democrats were serious about true health care reform [true being read here as a GOP version of health care reform] [or true meaning a bipartisan effort but I guess that's just too many ways to split the credit], there were many free-market solutions we could have easily passed. Americans support commonsense reforms such as purchasing coverage across state lines [i'm obviously ignoring the fact that this law now allows for this] [American's demanded this, a key point of Sen. McCain's health care plan] , stopping frivolous medical lawsuits [because my talking points tell me that tort reform is going to save health care even though reality shows that it won't], [why protect doctors? Aren't they rich? ] and giving the same tax breaks to Americans who don't get their insurance at work [because the GOP is all about tax breaks for the rich and forcing the poor to carry the tax burden] [Yes, all self-employed and Part-timers are rich... top1 % pays more than the bottom 90%, where is the "burden" again?]. Unfortunately, Democrats refused to listen [to our same old tired and worn ideas which we put forward but never really truly expected to be taken seriously because our whole objective in this health care reform process was to kill the bill from the very beginning, because we don't care about health reform we really only care about the 2010 and 2012 elections and if we could have stopped Obama from getting this health reform bill through we would have made sure that Obama's presidency went for the next three years with a major limp."] [same ole' same ole is right, unfortunately because republicans we're not invited to the table until after the bill was written, all you have is speculation]

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well its that I'm being taxed based on my sunday activity. Those who go to church have their Sunday activity funded through the tax-exemption of the church. Me, I spend my Sundays playing hockey. I have to pay money to play hockey, and that activity is taxed, which means those who choose to spend the day in church are having their Sunday activity subsidized by myself, who spends the day on the ice.

So work for a Constitutional amendment that establishes a separation of State and hockey.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll do the same...

To your comment where you called me a liar regarding the 60% of Americans who wanted a public option...read it an weep.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203

BTW, if you're going to call me a liar again, I suggest you make sure you're right first.

I'll even quote the article, I'd hate to think that you'd miss this information because you didn't click a link that so clearly proves you wrong. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit your "Americans didn't want health care reform" narrative its always hard when the facts don't line up with our preconceived notions, its ok though you'll adjust in time.

The survey of 2,999 households by Thomson Reuters Corp shows a public skeptical about the cost, quality and accessibility of medical care.

Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose.

Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:

* Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.

* 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

* Quality of healthcare will be better 12 months from now: 35 percent strongly disagree. 11.6 percent strongly agree. 29.9 percent put themselves in the middle.

* Believe the amount of money spent on healthcare will be less 12 months from now: 52 percent strongly disagree, 13 percent strongly agree.

* 23 percent believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now.

The nationally representative survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percent.

The House of Representatives passed a healthcare overhaul bill last month.

The Senate is debating a plan and will vote on Thursday on competing measures to ensure women have access to mammograms and other preventive screenings and amendments on proposed spending cuts in the Medicare government health program for the elderly.

If the Senate passes a bill, the two versions will have to be reconciled and passed again by each chamber before being sent to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate plan is designed to slow the rate of growth in healthcare, expand coverage to about 30 million uninsured Americans and halt industry practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.

It would require everyone to have insurance, provide federal subsidies to help them pay for it and establish a new government-run insurance option to compete with private industry.

Thomson Reuters is the parent company of Reuters.