re: "What If the ObamaCare Mandate Isn’t Struck Down?"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") worries about Constitutional over-reach by Congress (and the president).

Money quote(s):

"(T)he 11th circuit is discussing Obamacare and whether it’s constitutional for the government to force people to buy things.

That answer is “No”, by the way. Not just “No”, but “If you even contemplated allowing this, you should go to the nearest mirror, stare yourself in the eyes, and punch yourself really hard in the face.” This is just insane in a free country to think the government can force you to buy things, so much so that we really need to start deporting people for completely not understanding the concept of America." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

That's what I love about IMAO and Frank J. He never beats around the bush, letting you guess at what he really thinks.

The problem is one of ideological orientation. If you think government exists to do stuff, whatever stuff you think needs doing, then requiring people to do what they don't want (this is known as coercion) is fine. After all, you know best.

If, on the other hand, you think that the purpose of government is to do those things for The People (who are, by the way, sovereign) that they can't better do for themselves and that you've helpfully listed those things, as well as the methodology to be employed in their implementation (this is known as a Constitution); well, you can see where there'll be some disagreement.

"Not sure what to do if the courts don’t strike it down. We’d need to get an amendment in place immediately. Otherwise, Republicans will just have to make liberals choke on it by forcing people to buy things like gun and ammo, gas guzzling SUVs, and bacon. Maybe all our money will be spent, but at least we’ll have cool stuff."

WT - SIEGEL: A compromise to please both left and right? U.S. could offer illegals registration but leave amnesty indeterminate.

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

SIEGEL: A compromise to please both left and right?

U.S. could offer illegals registration but leave amnesty indeterminate

Thursday, April 8, 2010

By William D. Siegel

One of the critical lessons of the past year-plus of the Obamacare fiasco is that it is often more practical and reasonable to tackle such issues piecemeal. Another area where such a "noncomprehensive" approach could be helpful is illegal immigration; especially before President Obama commences a long struggle for comprehensive reform this year.

Read the whole editorial here.

Snippet(s):

"The "noncomprehensive" near-term approach proactively establishes a defined class of I/Us and separates it from all others (including all future I/Us) by forcing I/Us to make a choice to come forward first before they know their ultimate legislative disposition. In exchange for exposing themselves to a registration process, they are granted immunity from prosecution and deportation for their illegal entry. All other status questions - including any future benefits or penalties to be granted, such as requirements for citizenship, taxation, health care, employment rights, etc. - are left for future congressional determination, just as exists today.

A period is to be chosen, for instance six months, in which notice to register is given. If one does so register truthfully, he can then live "in full light" without fear of consequence for his illegal entry. The immunity, of course, is limited to illegal entry, not for other illegal acts. By coming forth, these I/Us create a newly defined and limited class. One way, perhaps, to identify this class might be to utilize the tamper-proof ID card currently being discussed. And given the effort afforded the 2010 census, there should be no aversion to requiring I/Us to go through a serious registration process.

Further, for I/Us who choose not to register, this approach requires deportation without interference. Congress should make clear its intent that failure to register supersedes any defense against deportation."
&

" "Amnesty" has had different meanings in this context. To some, it means granting anything short of deportation. To others, it has referred to the granting of some pathway to citizenship or other benefits thought not to have been properly earned. A third benefit is that by defining one group of I/Us, amnesty can be refused all others; something that goes a long way to satisfying the right without first determining the ultimate outcome for those who show good faith by registering."

_____

William D. Siegel is a trustee of the Hudson Institute.