Obamacare - Buy Insurance Or Go To Jail!

GOP's Ensign receives handwritten confirmation of IRS penalty for failure to pay fee - Politico

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives

_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

"Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

"Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

It makes splashy headlines, but Baucus' Baloney will lose in a court of law. Why?

1. The Constitution absolutely does not authorize CON-gress to legislate mandatory insurance for anyone. The federal government has never had the legal authority to be an insurance provider (FEMA), own shares in a private bank (the illegal bail outs) or health care. This is clearly established in the specifically enumerated clauses of Art. 1, Sec. 8 and no, the 'general welfare clause' does not give CON-gress leave to violate the supreme law of the land.

2. When the first Social Security Act was passed (Old Age Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits), it was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ssn.html

"When Congress adopted the Social Security Act in 1935, the Supreme Court had already addressed the first such act of 1934 and held in Railroad Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce:

"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power."

"Additionally, the revolutionary acts of Congress adopted in the two preceding decades had been emasculated in a series of Supreme Court decisions. Are we to suppose that, against this legal background, Congress decided to enact legislation of the caliber which had been struck as unconstitutional in the same year?

"In the second Social Security Act of 1935, Congress imposed excise taxes upon employers and those tax receipts were to be deposited with the Treasury. The act further provided schemes whereby participants could enjoy unemployment and retirement benefits. When the act was adopted, parties opposed thereto made challenges to the act, relying upon some, if not all, of the various cases cited above. The major arguments mounted against the act were premised upon contentions that the legislation constituted an invasion of state rights.

"In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883 (1937), an employer challenged the unemployment tax imposed upon it and the Court held that such tax was an excise which Congress could impose. In reference to the contention that the subject matter of the act was properly within the historical field reserved to the states, the Court held that Congress could enact legislation to aid the states in an area of great concern. The Court placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that the states were reluctant to adopt unemployment acts because such taxes created differentials between states which had such legislation and those which did not.

"By creating a national unemployment act, this difference was eliminated and a great benefit to the American people resulted. The Court, therefore, found nothing constitutionally objectionable to the act as to the issues which were raised. In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937), the same rationale was used to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance of these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerns the issues which these cases did not raise: neither of them addressed the issue of whether there was a requirement for any domestic American to join Social Security.

"The reason that this issue was not raised is because there is no such requirement, unless of course one works for a state government which has contracted into Social Security; see Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security Entrapment (POSSE) v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Cal. 1985), rev., 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390 (1986). "

3. We know that no one is required to obtain an SSN to live or work in the U.S.

I, along with hundreds of others, have letters from SSA that tell us so in plain language. You must apply for a SSN in order to obtain a benefit down the line. The government does not automatically issue an SSN to anyone. Babies are NOT required to be given that insidious number before they can leave a hospital. It says so right on SSA's own web site, yet parents are brow beaten and threatened all across this country. It is reprehensible.

However, even if you choose not to get a social security number, the thieves in Congress passed laws to tax you anyway for someone else's retirement. A Ponzi scheme that is TRILLIONS in the hole.

The bottom line is that CON-gress cannot force anyone to purchase health care insurance. I don't care what an ignorant fool like Baucus says. If this mess ever gets signed into law, there will be lawsuits by those contacted and told they must buy health insurance or pay a fine and/or go to jail. Bank on it.

Also, note in Helvering v Davis the court correctly pointed out that SS taxes go into the general fund of the treasury and are not ear marked for any specific spending purpose. A mathematically doomed program from the start.

Also, see:

Health Care Reform: Congress Has no Authority to Legislate

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd461.htm

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Health Care is completely Unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

The forced health care coverage in Massachusetts is a complete disaster. Costs are going through the roof.

Romneycare Costs One Hospital $100 Million

http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/2668

Please get on the phone all next week to your federal senator and tell them NO on any of these plans. More than 260 provisions that I've read in the plethora of bills have already been shot down by District Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court; I've cited many of the cases in my columns. Tell them all they're doing is creating a mess of new lawsuits.

Health care COVERAGE reform is needed at the state level.