Thread: President Trump, ObamaCare is not “dead” as you claim

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh I thought you were talking about the regulation of insurance, that is the commerce clause. As to the Medicaid program, that's part of the Social Security Medicare and Medicaid Services Act.

And what wording in our federal Constitution has granted a power to Congress to adopt the Social Security Act?


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

And what wording in our federal Constitution has granted a power to Congress to adopt the Social Security Act?


JWK

I presume the Preamble, the Commerce Clause, and the 16th Amendment which allowed for the income tax that is used to fund the Social Security Act, because labor is part of commerce.

Regardless of all the argument for and against the House passed bill, I refuse to get caught up in it because it is far from a done deal. Getting 50 out of 52 Senate Republican' to argee on anythng is going to be a very difficult task. It could take months, maybe even longer for this thing to move. Think I'll wait and see what transpires before getting caught up in this debate.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by johnwk

And what wording in our federalConstitution has granted a power to Congress to adopt the Social Security Act?

I presume the Preamble, the Commerce Clause, and the 16thAmendment which allowed for the income tax that is used to fund the SocialSecurity Act, because labor is part of commerce.

In accordance with the rules of constitutional construction, the Preamble expresses general objectives while the body of the Constitution details the limited specifics to accomplish the general objectives.

Regarding the 16^th Amendment, I find nothing in its wording granting a power to Congress to create the provisions of the Social Security Act. Its wording is very limited and simply allows Congress to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” without having to apportion such a tax ___ a power which Congress possessed prior to its adoption. See Flint vs Stone Tracy, 1909. Keep in mind the 16^thAmendment never repealed the provision in our Constitution that “direct taxes” are required to be apportioned.

Finally, with regard to Congress’ power to regulate “commerce among the States” I cannot imagine how such wording was intended to allow Congress to enter the States to regulate commerce within a State’s borders.

It should also be pointed out that the meaning of “commerce” within our Constitution, refers to the transportation of goods from point A to point B, and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of products or the growth of produce within a State’s borders which are then exported beyond its borders.

I think one of our failures ___ those who see our constitutionally limited system of government being dismantled by those who took an oath to support and defend it ___ is a failure to learn the fundamental rules of constitutional construction which is absolutely essential to preserving and defending our system of government.


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

Finally, with regard to Congress’ power to regulate “commerce among the States” I cannot imagine how such wording was intended to allow Congress to enter the States to regulate commerce within a State’s borders.

You have to understand the phrase, "commerce among the states", that doesn't mean between the states from point A to point B, it means commerce within the states that is part of a larger set of states. Once the commerce reaches out beyond the borders of one state, it is now part of the larger group and as a member, it is subject to the federal regulation of commerce.

You also have to understand the meaning of the word commerce which includes labor. Labor requires payroll. The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to tax payrolls of labor and their employers, labor is part of commerce, the Social Security Act with authority from the 16th amendment taxes payrolls and employers of labor for the benefit of labor which is part of commerce regulated under the commerce clause to provide for the general welfare as directed by the Preamble. You add the Preamble which is the direction, the Commerce Clause which is the authority, and the 16th Amendment which is the means, and together it's simple step 1, 2, 3 constitutional formula.

We have a great many unconstitutional and questionable activities going on in our country, but in my opinion, the Social Security Act isn't one of them. Congress would be wise to keep its mind and hands off of it. The Social Security Administration has run this program without a payroll tax increase for Social Security Benefits in 27 years, and the Medicare program without a payroll tax increase for Medicare Benefits for 31 years. No other agency in the US government, nor any state or local agency can claim likewise. SSA is not only our largest, most complicated vital agency, it is one of our best run, best managed agencies, quite remarkable when you consider all the incompetence in so many others.

Obamacare on the other hand, is unconstitutional because of the mandates on individuals. There is no authority for this. SCOTUS got it so wrong on the individual mandate.

Originally Posted by johnwk

In accordance with the rules of constitutional construction, the Preamble expresses general objectives while the body of the Constitution details the limited specifics to accomplish the general objectives.

Regarding the 16th Amendment, I find nothing in its wording granting a power to Congress to create the provisions of the Social Security Act. Its wording is very limited and simply allows Congress to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” without having to apportion such a tax ___ a power which Congress possessed prior to its adoption. See Flint vs Stone Tracy, 1909. Keep in mind the 16thAmendment never repealed the provision in our Constitution that “direct taxes” are required to be apportioned.

Finally, with regard to Congress’ power to regulate “commerce among the States” I cannot imagine how such wording was intended to allow Congress to enter the States to regulate commerce within a State’s borders.

It should also be pointed out that the meaning of “commerce” within our Constitution, refers to the transportation of goods from point A to point B, and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of products or the growth of produce within a State’s borders which are then exported beyond its borders.

I think one of our failures ___ those who see our constitutionally limited system of government being dismantled by those who took an oath to support and defend it ___ is a failure to learn the fundamental rules of constitutional construction which is absolutely essential to preserving and defending our system of government.


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

Originally Posted by Judy

You have to understand the phrase, "commerce among the states", that doesn't mean between the states from point A to point B, it means commerce within the states that is part of a larger set of states. Once the commerce reaches out beyond the borders of one state, it is now part of the larger group and as a member, it is subject to the federal regulation of commerce.

You also have to understand the meaning of the word commerce which includes labor. Labor requires payroll. The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to tax payrolls of labor and their employers, labor is part of commerce, the Social Security Act with authority from the 16th amendment taxes payrolls and employers of labor for the benefit of labor which is part of commerce regulated under the commerce clause to provide for the general welfare as directed by the Preamble. You add the Preamble which is the direction, the Commerce Clause which is the authority, and the 16th Amendment which is the means, and together it's simple step 1, 2, 3 constitutional formula.

We have a great many unconstitutional and questionable activities going on in our country, but in my opinion, the Social Security Act isn't one of them. Congress would be wise to keep its mind and hands off of it. The Social Security Administration has run this program without a payroll tax increase for Social Security Benefits in 27 years, and the Medicare program without a payroll tax increase for Medicare Benefits for 31 years. No other agency in the US government, nor any state or local agency can claim likewise. SSA is not only our largest, most complicated vital agency, it is one of our best run, best managed agencies, quite remarkable when you consider all the incompetence in so many others.

Obamacare on the other hand, is unconstitutional because of the mandates on individuals. There is no authority for this. SCOTUS got it so wrong on the individual mandate.

Judy,

I’m not sure if you actually read what I posted above, especially what I wrote regarding our failure to learn the fundamental rules of constitutional construction which is absolutely essential to preserving and defending our system of government. Instead of responding to the specific points I made, you have once again offered a number of opinions while neglecting to substantiate those opinions are in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent as expressed during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text!

Now, with regard to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare”, which you mention above, as it was understood by our Founders during our Constitution’s framing a ratification process, let us recall our Founders own words!

General Welfare, our founders meaning.

In No. 83 Federalist and in explaining the meaning of the Constitution, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” [the 17 items listed beneath the phrase] which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."


This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti-federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."

Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.


JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

You have to take into account the impact of the 16th Amendment on the Constititution which was an act of the States. Only States can amend the US Constitution and they did, right or wrong, fair or not, they did it. That's why I support the FairTax legislation to replace the income tax which earmarks a portion to fund Social Security and Medicare. Maybe down the road after fixing our country, there can be a better way found to deal with the issues that Social Security Administration handles right now, but no one has had a better more sound idea yet.

Originally Posted by Judy

You have to take into account the impact of the 16th Amendment on the Constititution which was an act of the States. Only States can amend the US Constitution and they did, right or wrong, fair or not, they did it. That's why I support the FairTax legislation to replace the income tax which earmarks a portion to fund Social Security and Medicare. Maybe down the road after fixing our country, there can be a better way found to deal with the issues that Social Security Administration handles right now, but no one has had a better more sound idea yet.

What does your post have to do with the meaning of “general welfare” as understood by our Founders, or the rules of constitutional construction, which is what we were talking about?

It’s impossible to have a productive discussion when you ignore what was being discussed and switch the subject.

JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Originally Posted by johnwk

And what wording in our federal Constitution has granted a power to Congress to adopt the Social Security Act?


JWK

US Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality[edit]

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

• Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548^[9] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
• Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

Other Supreme Court rulings[edit]

• Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960) upholding §1104, allowing Congress to itself amend and revise the schedule of benefits. Further, however, recipients of benefits had no contractual rights to them.
• Goldberg v. Kelly 397 US 254 (1970) Brennan J held there must be an evidentiary hearing before a recipient can be deprived of government benefits under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) held that a male widower should be entitled to his deceased wife's benefit just as a female widow was entitled to a deceased husband's, under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act

AHCA cuts $1 trillion in ObamaCare taxes

Published May 05, 2017 Fox News

The Republican-authored American Health Care Act would drastically overhaul -- again -- the nation's health insurance system.
With its passage in the House on Thursday, supporters claimed the bill would lower premiums and give struggling patients more choice. Opponents say it would leave vulnerable and elderly customers facing higher costs and lead to less coverage.

But one thing's for certain -- the bill, which still would need Senate approval, guts ObamaCare taxes. According to the White House, the cuts amount to $1 trillion.

Though most the changes won’t be implemented until 2018, at the earliest, here is an overview of some of the major taxes slated for elimination and cuts.

Individual mandate tax: If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, under the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, you must pay a fee called the "individual shared responsibility payment." The GOP House bill would abolish the individual mandate tax – which an estimated 8 million Americans pay every year. According to HealthCare.gov, that translates to at least $695 per adult, and often more for higher-earning households. The GOP bill would, however, allow insurance companies to impose a surcharge in some cases for lapsed coverage.

Employer mandate tax: Mid-sized and large employers currently must offer health insurance to most full-time employees or face penalties. Combined, the individual mandate tax repeal and the employer mandate tax repeal are estimated to offer a $270 billion tax cut.

Medicine cabinet tax: Nearly 20 million Americans under ObamaCare were prohibited from using their pre-tax flexible spending account and Health Savings Account dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter drugs. The AHCA abolishes the $6 billion tax.

Flexible spending account tax: Close to 30 million Americans were hit with a tax on their flexible spending accounts and 20 million more on their Health Savings Accounts. Abolishing both comes out to be $20 billion cut, according to Americans for Tax Reform.

Chronic care tax: Individuals with high health care costs can deduct those expenses, but the ACA increased the threshold from 7.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income to 10 percent, according to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Abolishing this tax saves Americans $126 billion.

Excise tax: Excise taxes are paid for specific goods or services. Under ObamaCare, a 10 percent tax was tacked on to small businesses with indoor tanning services, which raked in about $600 million a year. The GOP House plan reverses this.

Health insurance tax: The health insurance tax is not imposed at a specified rate but rather set annually by Treasury to raise a specified amount of revenue. Abolishing it will be a $145 billion tax cut.

Prescription drug tax: Drug companies hit the jackpot in the House-passed health care bill. They had been pushing to eliminate a tax on prescription drugs. An analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that over a decade, repealing the prescription drug tax would cost $25 billion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...are-taxes.html