So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance

What if the Congress and Senate decides everyone should own a gun? They can now tax you/me/he/she for not owning said gun. There are now no limits to the power of the Federal Government. They must simply tax ones actions or inactions in order to exert control. Scary stuff. The Genie is out of the bottle.

Ultimately, if the voters thought the gun law was a dumb law, they'd vote for someone else. Eventually, the government is accountable.

And of course there are limits. If you don't want a gun, just pay the tax. Easy peasy.

Yes! I loved this part of Roberts' majority opinion: "[Justices] possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

See "Militia Act of 1792".

The government already MAKES you do plenty of things: pay/file taxes, obey laws, sign up for selective service if you're male and over 18, go to some kind of school for a certain number of years, etc.

Like others have said, the limits are set by the representatives WE elect to office. They are responsible to us, and therefore WE are the ones who ultimately decide those limits.

Yea - I agree with that, too. This same doctor mentioned the burdens of having to type up and input patient's records into the new(ish) universal electronic medical records system, and my first thought was "get a clerk or receptionist to do that!". Doctors are valuable, use their time wisely.

Well, one of the reasons taxes/subsidies exist is to account for external forces in the economy that aren't accounted for otherwise. Example, pollution is bad for society as a whole, so there's a tax on companies that produce whatever amount of pollution. Alternate example, raising children is important to society so the government offers a tax credit if you used child care services. These benefits/problems are not reflected in supply/demand or anything like that, so the government steps in to apply them and encourage practices that are good for all of us.

When someone goes to the emergency room with no insurance, our tax dollars pay for it in at least some part and usually in a large part after they can't afford to pay. This desire from the "we" to not pay for "their" lack of insurance, coupled with the widely held idea that having healthcare is a vital part of life, has lead to this decision that it is okay for the government to penalize via tax those who don't have healthcare.

"We can be taxed even if we don't use it"
Same with public schools, police stations, firemen, public transportation, unemployment, my issued AF uniforms (thanks though!), my mother's salary as a state employee, clean water, trash pick up, road repair, street lights, power plants, etc. It is in the best interest of the country at large for these things to be easily accessible by all, even if the individual doesn't use it.

"What if congress decides that we should buy (whatever item, in this scenario a gun)"
Well then congress would have to say that it is of vital national importance for every citizen for be armed, prove that taxpayers are already paying for those who aren't armed, and make it easy to provide access to guns. This extrapolation argument is about as strong as the "If we let the gays get married than what if someone wants to marry a goat!!!!" one, as guns and healthcare are two totally different things (though I suppose the use of one could lead to a need for the other ;)).

The federal government has historically stepped in to force the states to do things (see: 13th, 14th, 15th amendments) and other states have plans like this one (see: Governor Romney's Massachusetts Health Care), so no, this is not something new or something majorly terrifying signaling the end of the world as we know it. I'm not going to pretend to know how this'll play out or end, but I'm also not going to act like I know more about the constitution than the Supreme Court. There are reasons the founding fathers instituted a republic not a direct democracy (and that the people only directly elected the House of Representatives at first).

Your first paragraph I referenced above concerns, primarily, local and state governments. I have no problems with this type taxation. Massachusetts should be free to have any kind of health care they wish. Other states should be free to not have such if that is their decision.

In the second paragraph referenced you state that something must be of vital national importance for it to be taxed. There is no requirement of this in the ruling. The Legislative Branch must only decide to tax it. This is a huge expansion of taxing power of our Federal Government.

It comes down to whether one wants a large central government or not.

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

Congress has had, for over two hundred years, the right to make someone buy something, and it has not caused the demise of society. Neither will today's ruling.

So what you're saying, is that there was an act. That did stuff. And then LATER they passed another act that nullified the first or changed it in some ways?

NO WAY.

Per Slate.com - not conservative by any means

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...alth_care.html

..."Some of the law's defenders have argued that Congress did just that when it passed the Militia Act of 1792, which compelled all "able-bodied" white men of certain ages to have a battle-ready musket or rifle. But that law hails from an era in which the United States were still young and our politicians wore white wigs. How good of a defense, really, is the Militia Act for the insurance mandate?

It's pretty flimsy. The constitutionality of the insurance mandate relies on the so-called Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause, which authorizes the government to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." Because the two mandates have such different foundations, the constitutionality of one is essentially independent of the other.

Separate clauses aside, the Militia Act of 1792 would still be poor precedent for the insurance mandate, because Congress never enforced, or even meant to enforce, the law at the federal level. Lost in the health-care inflected discussion of the bill is its initial purpose: To standardize state militias and to authorize the president to call them into action. The government expected each state to achieve standardization through locally issued regulations, and to handle the gun-toting provision independently."...

See above.

:eek:

Wow dude. I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Or were you too busy planning your move to Canada to get away from these batshit crazy laws people be tryin' to pass lately?

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17r7...g/original.png