<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are Federal Health Insurance Mandates Constitutional?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:19:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Concepts You Will Not Hear During Budget Reform Debates &#8211; Florida Tenth Amendment Center</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-531587</link>
		<dc:creator>Concepts You Will Not Hear During Budget Reform Debates &#8211; Florida Tenth Amendment Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-531587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marque</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-311712</link>
		<dc:creator>Marque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-311712</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I distinguish this by saying that Social Security and Medicare, as much as we like to be told otherwise, are social programs that are funded by general revenues.  Yes, there are FICA taxes that supposedly support these programs, but those funds go directly to the federal treasury and Congress can do what it wishes with the overage, and fund underpayments from general revenues as well.  It&#039;s a total fiction that SS and Medicare are somehow unrelated to general tax-and-spend powers of the federal government, or that they are independent from the budget.  Calling them &quot;off-budget&quot; doesn&#039;t make it so. 
 
As for whether the mandate is otherwise constitutional, it isn&#039;t.  It requires you to pay a third party for services that you might not otherwise want.  That&#039;s not a tax -- the only money going to the government is a fine if you don&#039;t buy the policy, and that wouldn&#039;t satisfy your obligation to then buy insurance.  It&#039;s not regulation of commerce, because failing to buy insurance is no less engaging in commerce than failing to buy the creme brulee last night at dinner.  If interested, I&#039;d refer you to a couple posts of mine on this: 
 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/the-health-insurance-mandate-a-policy-in-search-of-a-power/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/th...&lt;/a&gt; 
 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/the-health-insurance-mandate-is-it-slavery/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/th...&lt;/a&gt; ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I distinguish this by saying that Social Security and Medicare, as much as we like to be told otherwise, are social programs that are funded by general revenues.  Yes, there are FICA taxes that supposedly support these programs, but those funds go directly to the federal treasury and Congress can do what it wishes with the overage, and fund underpayments from general revenues as well.  It&#039;s a total fiction that SS and Medicare are somehow unrelated to general tax-and-spend powers of the federal government, or that they are independent from the budget.  Calling them &quot;off-budget&quot; doesn&#039;t make it so. </p>
<p>As for whether the mandate is otherwise constitutional, it isn&#039;t.  It requires you to pay a third party for services that you might not otherwise want.  That&#039;s not a tax &#8212; the only money going to the government is a fine if you don&#039;t buy the policy, and that wouldn&#039;t satisfy your obligation to then buy insurance.  It&#039;s not regulation of commerce, because failing to buy insurance is no less engaging in commerce than failing to buy the creme brulee last night at dinner.  If interested, I&#039;d refer you to a couple posts of mine on this: </p>
<p><a href="http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/the-health-insurance-mandate-a-policy-in-search-of-a-power/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/th" rel="nofollow">http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/th</a>&#8230; </p>
<p><a href="http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/the-health-insurance-mandate-is-it-slavery/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/th" rel="nofollow">http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/th</a>&#8230; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: On the Constitution, Beware the Word â€œClearlyâ€ &#8211; Rob Natelson &#8211; Tenth Amendment Center &#171; HOME &#8211; Other Right Links and Posts</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-303388</link>
		<dc:creator>On the Constitution, Beware the Word â€œClearlyâ€ &#8211; Rob Natelson &#8211; Tenth Amendment Center &#171; HOME &#8211; Other Right Links and Posts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-303388</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Liberty Voice &#187; Lead Story &#187; On the Constitution, Beware the Word â€œClearlyâ€</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-303363</link>
		<dc:creator>The Liberty Voice &#187; Lead Story &#187; On the Constitution, Beware the Word â€œClearlyâ€</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-303363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-303260</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-303260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What does &quot;We the people&quot;, mean to you? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does &quot;We the people&quot;, mean to you? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: On the Constitution, Beware the Word &#8220;Clearly&#8221; &#124; The Ruthless Truth blog</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-303151</link>
		<dc:creator>On the Constitution, Beware the Word &#8220;Clearly&#8221; &#124; The Ruthless Truth blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-303151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution â€” but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: On the Constitution, Beware the Word &#8220;Clearly&#8221;&#160;&#124;&#160;Tenth Amendment Center</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-302889</link>
		<dc:creator>On the Constitution, Beware the Word &#8220;Clearly&#8221;&#160;&#124;&#160;Tenth Amendment Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-302889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution &#8212; but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] do not share the writerâ€™s confidence that national health care mandates are constitutional even under the modern Supreme Courtâ€™s altered version of the Constitution &#8212; but I recognize that legal scholars differ on this question. However, the claim that the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K in St. Petersburg</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-297951</link>
		<dc:creator>K in St. Petersburg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-297951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My apologies as this last message was intended to recognize the Tenth Amendment Center staff. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My apologies as this last message was intended to recognize the Tenth Amendment Center staff. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K in St. Petersburg</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-297950</link>
		<dc:creator>K in St. Petersburg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-297950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.healthcarereform.homestead.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.healthcarereform.homestead.com&lt;/a&gt; 
 
Individual mandates to purchase health insurance are unconstitutional.  To read more about the individual mandate and its relationship to the United States Constitution, please follow the link to see a comprehensive and itemized list of all recent articles, commentary, white papers, video and etc. on the subject!  My website (single issue, no advertising, no soliciting) is completely dedicated to this specific issue. 
 
Rob Natelson and the CNS News staff have done an exceptional job researching and publishing articles on this subject.  Thank you for your past work; please continue to publish on this subject going forward. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.healthcarereform.homestead.com" target="_blank">http://www.healthcarereform.homestead.com</a> </p>
<p>Individual mandates to purchase health insurance are unconstitutional.  To read more about the individual mandate and its relationship to the United States Constitution, please follow the link to see a comprehensive and itemized list of all recent articles, commentary, white papers, video and etc. on the subject!  My website (single issue, no advertising, no soliciting) is completely dedicated to this specific issue. </p>
<p>Rob Natelson and the CNS News staff have done an exceptional job researching and publishing articles on this subject.  Thank you for your past work; please continue to publish on this subject going forward. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Greenslade</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/11/are-federal-health-insurance-mandates-constitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-297434</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Greenslade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4041#comment-297434</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Other than as a point of discussion, it does not matter whether State Conventions or the State Legislatures debated and voted on ratification of the proposed constitution.  The Founders considered them equal and interchangeable because, as you stated, they were representatives or agents of the people of each State.  Both derived their authority to act from the people of each State.  If the State Legislatures had been designated to vote on ratification of the proposed constitution, as opposed to State Conventions, it would not have changed the nature of the government being formed, as some people believe.  Therefore, the designation of State Conventions was more symbolic than essential. 
 
The proof of equality between State Conventions and State Legislatures can be found in Article V of the Constitution.  It states, in part: 
 
&#8220;The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;&#8230;&#8221; 
 
State Legislatures can call for a Convention to propose amendments but ratification of any proposed amendment(s) is vested exclusively in either State Conventions or State Legislatures.  If Congress can simply pick one, they must be equal.  If my memory is correct, State Legislatures, not State Conventions, have ratified every amendment added to the Constitution since the document was adopted.  If there is equality in amendment then there had to be equality in ratification. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Other than as a point of discussion, it does not matter whether State Conventions or the State Legislatures debated and voted on ratification of the proposed constitution.  The Founders considered them equal and interchangeable because, as you stated, they were representatives or agents of the people of each State.  Both derived their authority to act from the people of each State.  If the State Legislatures had been designated to vote on ratification of the proposed constitution, as opposed to State Conventions, it would not have changed the nature of the government being formed, as some people believe.  Therefore, the designation of State Conventions was more symbolic than essential. </p>
<p>The proof of equality between State Conventions and State Legislatures can be found in Article V of the Constitution.  It states, in part: </p>
<p>&ldquo;The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;&hellip;&rdquo; </p>
<p>State Legislatures can call for a Convention to propose amendments but ratification of any proposed amendment(s) is vested exclusively in either State Conventions or State Legislatures.  If Congress can simply pick one, they must be equal.  If my memory is correct, State Legislatures, not State Conventions, have ratified every amendment added to the Constitution since the document was adopted.  If there is equality in amendment then there had to be equality in ratification. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
