• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Just a moment

The Wall Street Journal seems almost giddy over the opportunity presented by this "constitutional moment":

'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Federal Judge Roger Vinson opens his decision declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional with that citation from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788. His exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned.

As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom—we would argue the destructiveness—of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson's 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.

I'm not nearly that optimistic. Legislators and judges have been cleverly misinterpreting the Constitution for decades to get around the limits it puts on federal power. Even if the Supreme Court finally agrees that using the Commerce Clause to force citizens to take part in an economic activity goes far beyond constitutional justification, that would not likely slow the aggrandizement of power in Washington, let alone reverse course to the point where we revert to "limited and enumerated powers." Love to be wrong, though.

Comments

tim zank
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:51pm

Just to help point out what can be done if you allow the government to force you buy something you don't want or need I offer this:

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun?odyssey=mod|mostview

William Larsen
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:42pm

I down loaded the ruling and will look at it in depth later. From what I have heard and the little quoted of it, this may prove very important in a few years.

In Flemming v Nestor, the Supreme court ruled a person who had a SSN and had paid Social Security taxes was not gaurenteed SS benefits. This has been very clear for decades.

Back in 1973 I read Title 42 which is the Social Security act and I had a note that showed that applying for a SSN enrolled the individual into the SS program and acknowledge many things. This acknowledgment basically committed the individual to pay Social Security Taxes and as the Supreme Court ruled, the SS program that you sign up for and acknowledge does not gaurentee any benefit at all.

The question I always had and no one has been able to identify it, is what happens if a person never enrolls in Social Security, simply put, does not have a SSN? Is this similar or identical to the Obama Health Care bill that taxed people who did not buy health insurance?

The IRS conceded in tax court docket 5361-06 in 2008 that they could not force a person apply for a Social Security Number and that in reality there is no federal statute that requires any US citizen apply for a SSN. In fact the Statute 26 USC 6109 (c) clearly requires the Secretary of the IRS to assign an identifying number to any person.

I have never found a case where a person filed a suit in Federal Court contesting the legal right for the IRS to access FICA taxes on a person who does not have a SSN.

If this ruling holds, this may be a way for future parents to free their children from indentured servitude.

Any thoughts?

tim zank
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 4:01pm

Ironically, Judge Vinson pretty much used Obumbles' own words.

Here's the constitutional scholar in 2008:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqGnz6UqG

Quantcast