There are many people out there that have been raising the flag on the unconstitionality of the proposed health care reform legislations, specially the one being rammed down by Baucus and Obama.
I - that so far consider myself kind of illiterate regarding the US Constitution; I had the pleasure to meet her for first time eight years ago - have had the same suspicion for quite a while.
But today, Investors Business Daily brings an excellent argument on the inconstitutionality of the fine - which we know is a tax, no matter what definition the President tries to find in the dictionary for it - the current proposal carries for individuals refusing to buy health insurance.
Follow my lead and inmerse yourself in learning the Constitution that protect us. Read why they are not interested in making the original text public for people to read it:
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.
The Supreme Court is our last resource.
But I am, honestly, not very hopeful that will stand with us, the people.
Meanwhile, TV show after TV show, and speech after speech, the President and his accolades keep trying. But the harder they try, the deeper they sink.