Subscribe via RSS Feed

Frivolous

[ 18 ] March 29, 2010 |

Arguments that the requirement to buy insurance or pay a tax in the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional are not very convincing. But apparently we’re going to see some that are much, much worse.   Here’s learned constitutional scholar Saxby Chambliss trying on another ad hoc rationale for size:

“There are such significant issues that the court could very well declare the bill unconstitutional,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

Chambliss highlighted several provisions the court could strike down, such as a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax and federal payments that are more generous to certain states.

The idea that a program that provides more benefits to one state than another is unconstitutional is certainly…innovative. I somehow suspect that this is a line of argument that Republican legislators, especially those in the ex-apartheid states, are not going to want to pursue for very long, although perhaps Chambliss can start by getting Georgia to pay back its allegedly illegal surplus.

So how does Chambliss justify voting for so much allegedly unconstitutional legislation?

“We do things from time to time that favor one state or congressional district over another, but this is different because it’s such a massive legislation,” Chambliss said.

Oh. Well, I’m convinced!

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. commie atheist says:

    “We do things from time to time that favor one state or congressional district over another, but this is different because it’s such a massive legislationblack package being rammed down our lily-white throats,” Chambliss said.

    Fixed.

  2. E L says:

    “a mandate requiring individuals to… pay a tax” I’m all in for a voluntary income tax.

  3. DP says:

    The logic of republican legislators is something to behold. One wonders how difficult it must be for their staffers to make sense of their pronouncements.

  4. booferama says:

    What blows my mind about the “healthcare is unconstitutional argument” is that they point to the Powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, but they seem unaware that the Limits of Congress follow directly in the text, and that those limits fail to mention anything even remotely related to what they argue against.

  5. rea says:

    I suspect that what he is trying to articulate is a claim that the bill violates Art. I Sec 8:

    “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

    This provision is what did in the income tax, before the Constitution was amended to permit income taxes explicitly. Graham is trying to articulate a claim that the provision is being violated, but can’t do it coherently.

  6. Some Guy says:

    I offhand don’t know of any states that don’t require you to either purchase insurance, or pay a uninsured fee, to be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Not like there’s no precedent for this.

  7. JJ says:

    I met Saxby Chamblis once when I was attending a church in Athens, GA (Go Dawgs). He seemed like a nice guy at the time. I don’t go to church anymore.

  8. [...] Frivolous : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]

  9. [...] Frivolous : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]

  10. WrongfulDeath says:

    If the courst rule that the federal government can force you to buy a product produced by a private company or pay a punitive tax, then why can’t the federal government force you to buy a Chevy from them? What’s to stop them?

  11. WrongfulDeath says:

    Another interesting issue about this is that the poor are generally the ones that are currently doing without insurance now.

    So, when you force the poor into buying insurance….and they don’t….you charge them tax.

    The lower half of income earners pay less than 3% of the tax burden now with many of them paying nothing. So, how will you collect from them? What if they don’t pay? Are you willing to jail them?

    • Hogan says:

      So, when you force the poor into buying insurance….and they don’t….you charge them tax.

      I know, it’s ridiculous. If only the new law provided some kind of, I don’t know, subsidies maybe? So that poor people could afford insurance? That would have been such a good idea. Stoopid Democrats.

      • Hogan says:

        Or even an entire public program that provides medical insurance to poor people! There’s a thought. We could call it . . . MedicHelp? MedicAssistance? Something like that.

  12. [...] Death asks: If the courts rule that the federal government can force you to buy a product produced by a [...]

  13. iLarynx says:

    Re: Article 1, Section 8:

    Read the whole paragraph to see how baseless the “uniformity of taxes” claim is –

    Section. 8.

    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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    Note that the specific Congressional powers stated in this paragraph are:
    To lay and collect Taxes
    To lay and collect Duties
    To lay and collect Imposts and Excises

    Note also, that the specific requirements for uniformity are applied to:
    Duties
    Imposts and Excises

    Notice something missing? That’s right. Taxes are stated as being w/in the powers of Congress, while they are specifically and intentionally omitted from the requirement of uniformity.

    The “uniformity of taxes” claim is completely bogus, from a Constitutional perspective.

    One important point the wing-nuts always avoid is that one of the things this section says is:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to pay the Debts and provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.
    [and later in the same section]
    [The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    READ IT

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site