Single Payer Too Exspensive, No Way?

In the above example, it is spelled out in the constitution. The phrase personal effects is written. Personal effects includes anything on your person. Do you expect that the framers should include anything and everything that emcpases the term personal effect?

Exactly. But it's irrefutably part of the Constitution. It's even written on the same page as Article I. So either both are valid or neither is.

What other parts of the Preamble do you object to?

• To form a more perfect union?
• To establish justice?
• To insure* domestic tranquility?
• To provide for the common defense?
• To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

Or just that one clause? And why?

*I'd have gone with "ensure" myself, but then I also take issue with "unalienable" v "inalienable."

Th preamble is not a binding clause. Again, show me the enumerated power to tax for the purpose of said power.

First you'd have to prove that the PPACA is a tax. In the hundreds of posts you've made on the topic, you've yet to accomplish that. "Because I said so" is not proof.

I'll just throw this out there as well.

"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." James Madison.

Obama said so, SCOTUS said so.

Cite primary sources, please. Full quotes in context.

Just to clarify, ensuring the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity refers to their posterity, not to Hondurans hoping across the Rio Grande.

Also, what the founders did puts all this to shame.

Not the topic of this thread. It belongs in the thread where you claimed you knew there were terrorists crossing with the children (very short terrorists, apparently) and were challenged to provide their names and how you "knew" this. Chop-chop.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...care-individual-mandate-tax/story?id=16669186

The Constitution's preamble doesn't care whether the Hondurans entering illegally are terrorists or little children. It wasn't written to ensure the liberty of either.

Not a primary source. This:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/supreme-court-health-care-decision-text.html

is a primary source.

Now, using your literatist approach, cite the exact passage that says "This is a tax."

Then find and cite the full transcript of the speech where Obama said "This is a tax."

Wipe your chin.

Read the fucking link, I'm not going to read hundreds of pages of documents. It's well established and well understood that the individual mandate is a tax.

It's a tax, otherwise the ACA would no longer be a law because the only way the Supreme Court could find not to strike it down was if the mandate was, in fact, a tax. As it turns out, they got it right, and the mandate was designed as a disguised tax to get around the stupidity of the American voter.

So you have no idea what the original document says, and you're afraid to find out. Got it.

Any plans to get back to the original topic of the thread you started?

Garamet, you're not going to find anything in the ACA that says it's a tax because the document was written to be opaque, just as Gruber said. It doesn't matter how many pages you wade through, it's not spelled out anywhere, even though it's a tax as determined by the US Supreme Court and enforced by the IRS. It was written that way intentionally so the CBO wouldn't know to score it as a tax, because if they did then a bunch of Democrats in Congress wouldn't have voted for it and it wouldn't have passed.

Reading the mandate as a tax is required for it to pass Constitutional muster, falling under Congress power to levy taxes. A mandate couldn't pass muster because it's unconstitutional for the federal government to force a citizen to engage in a private financial transaction merely because they're a citizen. If they could do that, they could pass a law saying that all blacks have to work on cotton plantations for whatever private sector wages they can arrange to receive, or be hit with stiff fines and penalties.

Nice non reply. Glad to see you are on the verge of Chardman territory.

Now we go back to the broccoli question.

That's not what I asked. FF claims the SCOTUS decision states it's a tax, but he's never read the SCOTUS decision, couldn't find it until I sent him the link, and still refuses to read it.

None of which has anything to do with the OP. So what I'd like to know is whether any of you intend to go back to talking about single-payer. Otherwise you're just

I always give your posts the reply they truly warrant. Ya want better replies from me, then make a point that warrants a better reply. Til then, the best you can hope for are insults and Bender laughing harder.

Cite the enumerated power of Conngress. Congress has the power to tax for the purpose of...

Or you'll do what?

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;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

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.

From the Supreme Court ruling:

"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” - Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority opinion.

The Chief Justice went on to say:

“Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice."

The opinion was 5-4, and had Justice Roberts not ruled that the mandate is a tax, the USSC would have struck down the ACA as unconstitutional, finding that the mandate couldn't be supported under the government's power to regulate interstate commerce, which is how the administration was trying to justify its sweeping powers to punish individuals for personal decisions.

Stop arguing with you. Something I should have done a long time ago. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution.

As if.

See, I knew where to find it, you knew where to find it, @Federal Farmer was afraid to look. Why do you suppose that is?

And with that, they can use taxes to pay for absolutely anything at all, as long as they find a creditor to go between.

Literalists for the Constitution face much the same problem as those for the Bible: The quality of the text simply doesn't allow for a strict literal interpretation. You have to work harder than that; i.e., at least as hard as in any conversation with a real human.