-By Warner Todd Huston
It has come to this, America. Democrats have decided that if you don’t agree with their policies, you are to be fined. And if you don’t pay the fine, you are a criminal and will be sentenced to jail. That’s right, Democrats are criminalizing dissent.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to leave language in her heatlhcare bill that criminalizes and prescribes jail time for any American that does not want to buy private healthcare insurance. Think of this, America. I am telling you that the U.S. Congress has decided to force you to buy the product of a privately owned corporation! The power of the U.S. federal government has never been used to purchase something from a private company but here comes San Fran Nancy to do just that. But, let’s face it. She is only taking her cue from the big guy and his “Chicago way” sort of political thuggery.
The Joint Committee on Taxation issued a letter (Download pdf file) in reply to Representative Dave Crump’s inquiry about the matter of the criminal penalties of refusing to buy healthcare insurance should Pelosi’s version of Obamacare pass.
In reply the JCT outlines the exact language in the bill that proves that Pelosi and her Democrat leaders want to turn YOU into a federal criminal if you don’t want to buy her health insurance. Criminal penalties include:
- Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
- Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
Is it Constitutional? Apparently they just don’t care.
But what does it matter if the Constitution is violated by members of the Democrat Party? After all, they will rewrite the Constitution to suit their transitory criteria with which they’ll pass whatever bill they want to push. The Constitution serves as no obstacle at all to their ambitions.
Here is a prime example. CNSNews asked Senator Burris if he saw this power to coerce the people to engage in preferred commerce in the Constitution:
CNSNews: Federally, if you look at it from a federal standpoint, what area specifically of the Constitution would give Congress the power to mandate an individual to have health insurance?”
Burris: Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the–protect the health, welfare of the country. That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.
So, Burris has decided that “health” is in the Constitution? Certainly the words “general welfare” appear there, but health does not. But, pffft. What do these “words” mean? Why should we let laws and tradition stand in the way of getting votes for a welfare program. With glittering jewels of ignorance like accidental Senator Burris crafting America’s policies, it is no wonder we are fast losing our nation to enemies of democracy, freedom, liberty and the American way.
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.
He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.