Speakeasy forum: Just wondering about government mandated employee benefits

being held accountable in the Supreme Court in a couple of weeks because originally the 'penalty' that employers would have to pay if they didn't provide healthcare was argued as a 'penalty'; however, when 26 states challenged it, it was then deemed by the WH to be a 'tax' covered under the Interstate Commerce Act. Now that it is being challenged, with the very real possibility that they will lose that mandate, the new argument is that it now falls under the 'necessary' provision of some other law by saying that it is under the 'necessary and proper clause' to have the mandate in order for the healthcare law to work.

>>>Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.
>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

They are hoping that by including that clause in their argument that the Supreme Court will hold the entire healthcare law intact.

Is that they create laws in order to garner tax money for a specific purpose and then use the money for something else, then create new laws to garner tax money for the specific purpose again or increase the original one, and then use the money again for something else.....and the original intent never gets met. The Interstate Commerce Law was originally set up to tax the trucking industry alone to get money to create and repair highways, then it got extended to include the products the trucking industry was hauling, then it got extended to include airlines because THEY haul products, etc.....and it went on and on and on....and then ultimately the 'stimulous' was put out there to rebuild the 'infrastructure' that was falling apart and those 'shovel ready' jobs didn't happen so it got dumped into green energy instead along with bailouts, etc.

It just all snowballs and morphs into other stuff instead of having the tax money actually GO where it was supposed to go.....

Not blaming one party or another.......both have been guilty of this crap.....and now it includes freaking HEALTHCARE??????? What has the damn Interstate Commerce Clause have to do with somebody's health other than the medical devices that get shipped around?