Ernest Christian and Betty Jo Christian of Investors Business Daily are reporting that, “The controversial tax that both Obama and Baucus would impose on people who do not buy health insurance appears to be a “direct tax” on persons that is unlawful under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution.”
Without regard to one’s views about the health care legislation promoted by President Obama and currently being redrafted by Sen. Max Baucus, everyone is entitled to expect that the task will be carried out with competence and integrity — also with dignity and a high regard for the intelligence of the American people.
Further, even if everyone agreed that the proposed federal interventions in health care were consistent with “best medical practice” and produced the best possible medical care at the least price, all these federal actions would still have to meet constitutional standards.
The controversial tax that both Obama and Baucus would impose on people who do not buy health insurance appears to be a “direct tax” on persons that is unlawful under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution, which requires that “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their Numbers . .. .”
In addition, Art. 1, Sec. 9, says: “No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken … .”
The only exception to the constitutional prohibition against unapportioned direct taxes is for the federal income tax, which was authorized by the 16th Amendment — but the direct tax on the uninsured is not an income tax.
Sen. Baucus claims that the tax on the uninsured is an “indirect” excise tax — like the federal gasoline tax — that does not have to be apportioned. But Sen. Baucus appears to be in error. An excise tax is a tax on a “thing” (such as a commodity or a license). That is why an excise tax is classified as “indirect.”
People who choose not to buy insurance are not things.
They are people. And the tax is imposed directly on them in exactly the same way as a direct income tax, except that in this instance, the tax amount does not depend on the size of the person’s income.
This constitutional defect in one of the linchpin elements of the health care legislation was not brought to light for public discussion by either the White House or the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Instead, it was exposed a few days ago by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the few people in this rapidly deteriorating health care drama who are conducting themselves with a high degree of intelligence and regard for the integrity of the Constitution and our basic civic institutions.
Source:
Is Obama’s Tax On Health Care Constitutional?
![Glenn Beck - States Test the 10th Amendment [1 of 2] - May 7, 2009](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W_Lv0Nfvkvo/3.jpg)
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
“Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.”
The United States of America and all of its territorials incorporated in the late 1800, so if the seat of power is incorporated then we would be operating under the mantel of the corporation, out side of the Constitution. As any other corporation it has its statute and code to regulate it employees. So if the us of A is incorporated then we would be its employees, due to our SS #, drivers licensee and birth certificate. Ect. As every state in the union is incorporated and most cities are incorporated, than we would be working for the corporation, and not have the protection of the constitution. That is why we have statute and code and not constitutional law.