- GOP's Ensign receives handwritten confirmation of IRS
penalty for failure to pay fee - Politico
- "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:
- "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
- 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
- Judge Andrew Napolitano: Health Care is completely Unconstitutional
- The forced health care coverage in Massachusetts is a
complete disaster. Costs are going through the roof.
- Romneycare Costs One Hospital $100 Million
- 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.