AMERICA – A Federal Court in Florida has struck down Capitalism, ruling that the requirement for individuals to live under any type of economic system is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in his judgment ruled that the so-called economic system known as capitalism exceeds congressional power.
“The Congress does not have the power to compel an individual to live under any economic system,” Vinson said.
“If Congress can force people to buy and sell products or property for a profit, we would have a Constitution in name only,” wrote Vinson. “Surely this is not what the founding fathers could have intended.” Vinson wrote.
Vinson added that “As a strict Constitutionalist, I see nowhere in the U.S. Constitution where Capitalism is even mentioned. The Founding Fathers were always right. Thus, Capitalism must cease and desist, effective immediately.”
The ruling had a ripple effect throughout the nation, as money immediately became useless, debts became purely theoretical, and Wal-Marts had to start giving away all their Chinese-made products for free. China could not be reached for comment.
Former billionaires Charles and David Koch called the ruling ‘Political activism at its most extreme,” adding that “It’s just a God-damned piece of paper!”
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress – the vast majority of them millionaires – have railed against the ruling. U.S. Senator Rand Paul – well-known for his Libertarian values and strict Constitutional interpretations – said that the courts were just taking the Founding Fathers much too seriously.
“The founding fathers vaguely inferred that the U.S. is a capitalist nation,” said Paul. “And even if they didn’t, Christ, that was like 250 years ago. What did they really know about how things would be like now?”
With orders from Paul and the Koch brothers, Tea Party leaders are currently working on a plan to create a Constitutional amendment to abolish the U.S. Constitution.
Still, some were pleased with Vinson’s decision. Noted anarchist Noam Chomsky said he agreed with the ruling.
“This is just friggin’ awesome,” said Chomsky.
No stay on the ruling will be allowed, and the U.S. Supreme Court – its docket filled with Health Care Rulings, Barack Obama citizenship issues, and fundraisers for conservative causes – has declined to take up the case.
Implications of the ruling are vast, including the elimination of all debts of all kinds, as without capitalism, debts become purely theoretical. for his part, President Barack Obama released only a 12-word statement.
“I just balanced the budget by throwing it away. Next problem, please,” said Obama.
The news hit Wall Street hard, as the Dow Jones Industrial average fell 11,891.93 points.
–WKW
Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum ChroniclesTIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
ThinkingViolet
UncleChri
another steve s
Susan Wade Edwards
Progressive Liberal
john blumenthal
Salon.com
Comments
Rated
only way you and the rest can deal with defeat. Especially when the truth hurts.
“The Congress does not have the power to compel an individual to live under any economic system,” Vinson said.
Absolutely correct. First of all a judge would not engage in economic labels created by economists and academics. They have no place in the law and thus NOT mentioned in the constitution.
What did you miss in this statement? He did not say capitalism was NOT ok. He said no one is compelled to live within it. And in fact, thank god, no of us are.
And of course walmart did not close but on the other hand i am not compelled to buy from them nor am I compelled to open a business for profit should I chose to be a charity.
What the judge did say is something I posted elsewhere. If the individual mandate stood, then I could be forced to buy anything.
Do you want to be forced to buy a gun? They would then be cheaper for me so I think I like that.
Obama, Pelosi and Reed and the rest have let you down for going about this the wrong way. They could have funded this through a tax. But they did not. I cannot believe that they did consider the possibility of the happening, but then Obama has his campaign promise to live up to.
They took a big gamble with your desires at stake and lost. Now you savior Obama is selling you down the river pretending to be a
centrist. What has he done for you in 2 years? Failed to get you the single payer system you really wanted, ran up the debt without any noticeable help to the economy.
He could nt even get the taxes raised on the evil wealthy people and he excused it to you by saying he had to compromise with the conservatives. Not so. He just dropped the ball. Why didn't he and the congress pass a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts without the wealthy BEFORE he took a shellacking. That would have been the smart thing to do. I wonder. Was it because he was too stupid or because he really did not want to do it and then needed a way to explain it to his base.
What is it like to put all your hopes into one man as if he is some savior and then get let down. Gitmo still open. Rendition still going on. Doe that make you happy that we just let someone else do our torturing for us? Does tht make Obama any better than Bush.
And what did Obama do in the last 2 years about this Egypt thing. Nothing. Only now because it has happened under his watch does he have to address it. He, like all the past administrations for 30 years supported this dictator in the name of protecting Israel and
stabilizing the middle east (oil). He is no different than the rest of them.
They should have never written the commerce clause as one sentence.
But I think i can say they did not intend the commerce clause to
mean anything that law makers want to use it for.
If that were the case, the constitution would be a much smaller document. It would define the 3 branches of gov and then just have a sentence that says "the gov just created in the previous words can regulate the states (and citizens) in any way it wants. States rights are always second to the fed gov."
Well they did not because we are a Republic and the notion is that with exceptions, the States rights come first. The commerce clause was to make trade between states fair, not to require states to participate in a federal gov run enterprise nor to require them to engage in intestate commerce if they don't want to. It was to settle disputes between states. After all who else would decide a dispute between states.
Sorry if you don't like that but it is the way it is. And you should like it. It makes our states compete for our residency. I choose TX because we have no income tax. You can chose MA if you want state health care. That is the whole point of a republic. We all get some things from the feds, like national defense, civil rights etc. But the preponderance of things are left to the states, giving us all a choice.
TX charges a flat fee for car registration. MS charges based on value. Now just about any car purchase is interstate commerce. Does that mean that the commerce clause allows the feds to dictate that all states follow the same registration fees? No.
Can states give free cars to people if they want, enven though they were bought from another state? Yes.
You should hole the DC upholds this decision or you may be buying things you don't want to. It is a two way street. Law makers will inevitable do things you find atrocious should this stand.
Be careful what you ask for.
Isn't this mandate essentially a tax, which Congress is decidedly authorized to do? After all, lack of compliance to the mandate is clearly financial (a fine) rather than jail time.
And, again, given our requirement to pay taxes for public goods, aren't we essentially required to purchase fire and safety services and schooling for our children? In particular, how do you justify mandates to send children to school? I understand that last question isn't necessarily related to commerce, but it's arguably a deeper infringement.
78 pages. I think everyone should read it. Obviously the OP did.
So did I.
Here is is where I read it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905937/Health-Care-Ruling-by-Judge-Vinson
I think my statement is fair to say that if it meant "everything" the rest of the Constitution would be unnecessary and we would have nothing that resembled a republic.
Nice for people. But what should our judges do (liberal or conservation). At some point they must quit seeking and make a decision.
And the same holds for people. You can keep seeking, but at any given time you can only act on what you currently perceive to be the truth. If you can suggest a way I can do any better than that I am open to suggestion.
Under Obamacare in 2104 his policy will be illegal. He will be forced to buy a smaller deductible policy which he cannot afford.
In the name of making others policy more affordable.
The is not right or fair to him.
I suspected that was the argument re drivers' insurance. But here's the rub, in my opinion: People actually do in fact *get* health care, whether they pay for it or not. So the drivers' thing is not perfectly analogous. It's not like everybody drives and only some people get insurance. It's everybody who drives gets insurance. Well, "everybody who gets health care" = everybody, doesn't it? So everybody who gets health care should get insurance. That's my understanding anyway. Theoretically, despite their (apparently) poor choice not to insure themselves, invincible feeling twenty somethings *still* get health care when they end up with an emergency appendectomy or an STD. Sometimes they can afford it and sometimes they can't but eventually we all pay for it.
What do you think of my reframing the issue as one of taxation? I think that will be the Obama administration's argument, although I've not read or heard anything of the kind.
The admin will not argue it is a tax. They already declined to do so. They invoked primarily the commerce clause because it was the only real argument they had. I would also point out that this judge said he found it difficult to strike this law down as he realizes that
health care needs addressing. He says he cannot do any different because it is not Constitutional He also explains, which is not necessary for a judge to do so, that the congress is in no way enjoined from finding another remedy. Taxation would probably pass muster as it seems that the ability to tax almost anything has always held up. But, for good or bad, the triple play no longer exits. That will be a hard row to hoe.
My guess it would be easier to simply compromise on some of these things.
As for the "everyone" thing the judge explains this. And the car analogy is a good one. He says you cannot require insurance of someone now who may take advantage of medical care in the future. For instance a New Yorker may move to Austin in the future and need a car. You cant make him buy car insurance now.
He also states that just because we have created laws that require people to be treated in ERs, which cause a financial burden, you cannot fix that problem with an unconstitutional law.
If you read between the lines he is not saying those laws are good or bad. He is just saying the fact that they exist and cause a problem doesn't mean you can fix it with the mandate. As before there are many options to deal with that. We could say no. We could tax to pay for that. Or we could leave it alone and continue being pissed at 20 something indestructibles.
Also the judge goes into some detail about this issue of everyone being a "future" user.
I am an example of not everyone. I have good employer insurance. But I am very ill and I have an alternative MD treating me for 15 years. She works out of her home and refuges to deal with insurance all together. I pay her $350 an hour. Even with insurance she is my biggest expense that I pay myself. It is interesting because I know she is liberal as our hour long conversation sometimes get off medical topics. I am not sure where she stands but Obamacare could put my relationship with her out of business.
I would also point out that this lawsuit involved the issue of expanded medicare and was challenged by the states
Here is a small portion of a description of the challenge.
"In Count IV, the state plaintiffs challenge the Act to the extent that it alters and amends the Medicaid program by expanding that program, inter alia, to: (i) include individuals under the age of 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, and (ii)render the states responsible for the actual provision of health services there under.This expansion of Medicaid allegedly violates the Spending Clause and principles of federalism protected under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement."
The judge did not find in favor of the states. He ruled against them
and upheld the law. His opinion on this was very detailed and as logical as the mandate issue.
As you already know I think he came to a fair, legal decision.
Would you agree that we can reform health care with something better than what we got? Do we really need something that Pelosi said "we have to pass before we can understand it"?
Also, another objection I have to the law is that as I understand it, many details about the exact way care is administered will be under the control of a gov agency. Like the FDA, EPA etc. I don't want the whims of all future administrations with appointed officials deciding what procedure is covered and how much they will pay.
I want elected congresspeople making thee decisions, not appointed ones.
As for the mandate, that of course is the critical piece of the legislation that keeps health insurance affordable. Everybody has to pay in, and the healthy ones are essentially footing the bill for the sick ones. The understanding is that we all take turns at being both sick and healthy. It's the kind of social compact that works in the big picture, random anecdotes to the contrary notwithstanding.
And Joseph Cole ought to have better sense than to bring up tax cuts for millionaires. Those were forced on the nation by the very legislators screaming about the deficit, millionaire legislators who held hostage to their greed -- and the greed of their mememe constituents -- funds for 9-11 first responders and, traitorously, held hostage the nuclear arms treaty.