I was thinking of writing this up as a Most Wanted, but it deserves significant exposure. The Institute of Justice has filed an amicus brief regarding Obamacare. It questions the ability of the government to force people into contracts against their will, and if this is done for Obamacare then there would be no limit to what Obama could force anyone to do. And one cannot help but wonder if this is not part of the plan.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuvkXqE8HDw[/youtube]
Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute’s Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ’s brief, said, “The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power.”
As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ’s brief, visit: www.ij.org/PPACAbrief.)
If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.
The Institute for Justice’s brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.
This is arguably the single most important aspect of Obamacare. It could in fact codify tyranny.
via Hot Air
More at IJ
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
…and Romneycare is the father of Obamacare.
Thank you, Republicans, for giving us this socialistic government.
I really appreciate this slant on the problem with ObamaCare.
In medicine there is also the principle of informed consent.
In other words, a patient (or his/her guardian) has to be informed of treatment options and can with hold or give consent to one or another option.
A religious battle has brewed and simmered over many years about children and limits that parents place on their range of options.
Some parents refuse a lot of treatments, others refuse one or just a few.
But these parents were allowed to decide the medical direction for their child’s treatment course because THEY were the parents.
Recently parents have been ignored or gone around by doctors wh0 used a legal system to choose a new parent (for the purpose of rubber-stamping their chosen course of treatment).
ObamaCare goes further than this;
it becomes everyone’s parent, everyone’s minister or priest, everyone’s doctor!
Hopefully the courts will see the incredible folly of unintended consequences would this be our nation’s new direction.
@Nan G:
They haven’t necessarily done so in the past, Nan. Unintended consequences have dealt economies and societies throughout history debilitating blows, all from seemingly innocuous or “feel good” government directives.
I hired 2 engineers out of California. This healthcare program is such a mess that I got them to incorporate and come in as subcontractors. They tell me now that if Obamacare becomes solid they may incorporate as Albertans. You folks may lose 2 100k+ contractors because of this Gordian Knot. Google the term and find out what Alexander the Great did with the knot.
This really gets to the heart of the entire Obamacare issue and why conservatives want it repealed.
Ivan brings up the Republicans, but we need to be clear that there are “Big government conservatives” that are, essentially, the establishment GOP, and that they wouldn’t necessarily move to repeal the law. Romney is one of these types, as evidenced by his own record as MA Governor and the support he is enjoying from the GOP establishment.
The issue has to do with a government dictating what an individual can, and cannot, purchase. If allowed to stand, it opens the door for government to dictate to the individual an ever increasing list of items, all under the auspices of the “commerce clause”. The examples of possibles are nearly endless, but include such things as electric cars and media packages. The individual is an individual because they have choices, and those choices define who, and what, that individual is. Without choice, there is no individual, and we become nothing more than chattel for government elites to live off of. Sure everyone becomes equal, but they do so in misery.
@Ivan: Progressives more so than Republicans.
It has been a long time since I studied government process in grade school but isn’t a republic structured to facilitate law making with the citizens electing intelligent, dedicated men to congress and president who will, at our expense, take the time to study issues and determine the best possible solution. This was done with a nod to the fact that not everyone has the time or intelligence to investigate the complexities of politics and make high level decisions. By delegating that responsibility to men who can (think Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank) make those decisions, we tacitly agree with the outcome. The result becomes law.
Is that not what happened when the Dems in control of Pres, House and Senate rammed this law through quickly before they lost control of some part? Have we not agreed before the fact, thus were NOT under duress? This sounds like a job for multitudes of slick, lying lawyers to have the necessary deviousness to get accomplished.
@Oil guy from Alberta:
That’s a comforting thought for a solution but remember, Alexander was an exceptional leader who dealt in solutions!
Who should/could/will rise to the occasion and slash away, our current “leader”? Hooooo haaaah!
Any one of mutts struggling to get the chance to oppose him in the next election?
Any of the underachievers in congress?
One of the foot soldiers in the “army”? Remember that not only was Alexander personally intimidating but he was backed by legions of battle hardened troops and a well known history of success. Any ordinary man standing alone would have instantly been beaten into red jelly by the Knot’s attendants.
I hate to wimp out but the only Gordian Knot solution I see is a pleasant daydream. I expect this issue to drag on for years while being compromised into an even more ineffectual and hugely expensive nightmare.
My apologies for being such a storm crow.
BTW– that’s a great pic of a banana republic dictator’s uniform.
It is scarily similar to the uniforms that Nixon proposed for the white house police.
Ohhh…be afradi….be very afraid. Conspiratorial morons. Yeah, let’s all go back having spaghetti dinners at the local VFW to pay for your kids surgery so you don’t have to sell your house. Wake up.
@liberalmann:
Now, what was it they say about name calling……………..? Oh well, I’m sure it will come to me soon.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for the apology, liberalmann. It’s been nearly a full day now. Certainly plenty of time to verify my list of Obama tax increases.
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/leaked-bin-laden-not-buried-at-sea-body-moved-on-cia-plane-to-us/#comment-363005
If it is illegal to mandate ObamaCare, wouldn’t that mean it was illegal to mandate Social Security? We don’t have an opt in or opt out with any of them.
@liberalmann: You wouldn’t know what the inside of any VFW facility would look like!! What branch did you serve in??
@Comm0n Sense:
The Obama civilian force.
– It’s just as well-equipped, and as well-funded as our regular military is.
– And, he’s still serving.
– Training and base sites include Media Matters, DU.com, HuffPo.com, and DailyKos.
-Uniforms are brown button-ups, purple t-shirts, and rainbow ribbons.
-Secretary of the “civilian” force is George Soros.
-Vehicles include the internet and MSM tv and radio waves, along with recycled gray paper matter and black ink.
-Theater of operation has ranged all across the US, with a “coalition” of supporting countries including Germany, England, Russia, China, and nearly the entire ME, including Israel.
@johngalt: Bite me.
@liberalmann:
LOL! That’s original, liberalmann. Got my apology ready yet?
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/leaked-bin-laden-not-buried-at-sea-body-moved-on-cia-plane-to-us/#comment-362998
@johngalt: #14
MOTTO
All for one, and Obama is The One.
FLAG
Islamic star and crescent, the swastika, the hammer and cycle, and any other flag that represents a dictatorship, all rolled into one.
@Smorgasbord:
Yeah, I pretty much had some fun with that one. I could have kept going with it, listing those things you did, as well as quite a few others. I guess I made my point, hence liberalmann’s reply, lol.
@johngalt: #18
I wonder what their mascot would be.