Charles Krauthammer, Obamacare may not be the law of the land as you assert!

2-22-13 | johnwk

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 while appearing on FoxNews Special Report, hosted by Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer asserted that Obamacare was duly passed by Congress and is the law of the land. But our founding fathers were very careful to stipulate in our Constitution, and in crystal clear language, that our Constitution, and only those laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land. And so, since Mr. Krauthammer asserts Obamacare is ``the law of the land``, I would imagine he is capable of explaining why the following stated reasons are insufficient to establish that Obamacare has not been made in pursuance of our Constitution, and is therefore not the ``law of the land``.
Let us start with Justice Roberts’ opinion and determine what specific taxing power granted to Congress has been pointed to which will be levied in the enforcement of the “shared responsibility payment“. On page 41 of Roberts’ opinion he eliminates Congress’ direct taxing power and inadvertently goes on to also exclude a tax which may be laid upon incomes without apportionment. He writes: “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

According to Roberts, the shared responsibility payment is “triggered“ by a realization of “a certain amount of income”. But in fact, the subject of taxation under the individual mandate is not a realization of “a certain amount of income”. The subject matter being taxed under the individual mandate is a failure to have federally approved health insurance which triggers the tax, while a calculation of one’s “income” is then used to discriminate among citizens in the payment of the “shared responsibility payment”, and under such circumstances would not be “shared“ uniformly or equally among the citizens of the united States as required by our Constitution.
And in reference to the power to lay and collect excise taxes, excise taxes are those levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter.
Finally, we can exclude imposts and duties as being the taxing power resorted to for the “shared responsibility payment” because imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the import or export of goods.
Perhaps the above observations explain why Roberts never identified the specific taxing power [imposts, duties, excises, a direct tax, or a tax upon incomes without apportionment] which may be levied upon individuals for not having federally approved health insurance. Roberts merely indicated the shared responsibility payment is to be collected along with taxes on incomes, not that it is an “income tax”.
So tell us Mr. Krauthammer, of the specific taxing powers granted to Congress, which specific tax may be levied to collect the “shared responsibility payment” from individuals for not having federal approved health insurance, and be within the limitations of the taxing power selected?
The next reason why Obamacare appears to have no constitutional basis is because the people have never debated granting power to Congress to enter the various united States and regulate the people’s medical needs and health care choices. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted with the specific intention “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of” of the new governments “powers”. And this fact is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .
Note that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are among those “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and in crystal clear language they reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the people of the united States or the respective united States!
The irrefutable fact is, no such power can be pointed to under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 __ which enumerates the specific powers for which Congress was granted power to lay and collect taxes __ that allows Congress to enter the various united States and mandate what the people‘s medical and health care decisions shall be. And, the only lawful manner by which to delegate such power to Congress is under Article V of our Constitution. But Article V requires consent of the governed via the approval of the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof and this has not happened! So how has Obamacare been lawfully enacted into law? Is Congress clothed with authority to assume powers not granted?
Tell us Mr. Krauthammer. When have the people knowingly and willingly delegated to Congress the extraordinary power to meddle in their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices? Is this not exactly what Obamacare does? Is it not settled law that an act of government which impinges upon a fundamental right, is “presumptively unconstitutional”?
“It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.”___ City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
So tell us Mr. Krauthammer, would you not agree that it is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind to be free to make one’s own medical and health care decisions and choices? And if you do agree, and then consider the various above stated objections to Obamacare, how can you conclude that Obamacare is a “law” made in pursuance of our Constitution or be “the law of the land“?
JWK
If the people of the united States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?