Submitted by M. R. Hamilton on
The reason this article is linked on the IRS menu is because it falls under the same legal authority as the income tax. Which means it has no legal force of authority within the 50 states. Allow me to explain.
All of our federal level senators and representatives are raising a big stink over how many people have lost coverage over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate. All of this stress and worry is done only to get voters to vote for them. For the same reason that the federal government does not have the authority to levee a direct tax within the states that is not apportioned, (income tax is not apportioned) the federal government does not have the authority to regulate insurance which is a state regulated industry.
Let's break this down. Every insurance company that does business in any state is required by the state to obtain a license to do so and is regulated by that state. The insurance companies offer varying insurance plans based on those regulations. As has been discussed so frequently during the ACA debates, people living in one state cannot cross a state line to obtain insurance from another state, because the insurance company licensed to do business in that state, may not be licensed to do business in the customers home state and even if it is, the plan may not be offered in his home state.
The federal government only has authority over interstate markets. A trucking company that transports goods and services over state lines is practicing interstate commerce. A farmer who sells his grains in another state is doing the same. An insurance company only sells insurance plans geared to a specific state in that state. That is why when you call a central phone bank to purchase insurance from a national company, you will be forwarded to an agent licensed in your state. Federal laws are written by hundreds of lawyers whose job is to make federal laws as confusing as possible to sucker as many people to believe it affects them, even though it does not. As was opined in AMERICAN BANANA CO. v. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347 (1909),
The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. 'All legislation is prima facie territorial.' Ex parte Blain, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 590, 596. Words having universal scope, such as 'every contract in restraint of trade,' 'every person who shall monopolize,' etc., will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only everyone subject to such legislation, not all that the legislator subsequently may be able to catch.
This was later upheld in in 1949 in FOLEY BROS. V. FILARDO , 336 U.S. 281 (1949).
First. The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a countrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Keep in mind the opinion is referring to the United States not the united states which is a union of sovereign states.
When I wrote to the governor of the state of Louisiana, explaining that he could protect all Louisianans from losing their insurance plans and doctors like so many Americans have been, I received a response not from Governor Jindal, but from the Department of Insurance. In it the author stated that "the ACA required that all United States citizens are required to get insurance." This, of course, I already knew. That is what I was telling my representative, but the fact that Louisianans are not required to participate in the ACA was evaded entirely. The state of Louisiana, and probably your state, too, is complicit in the deception.
It is the state's obligation to protect the people of said state from interference from other states. The United States (, Inc. as in federal government) is a foreign nation legally with regard to the several states.
As independent sovereignty, it is State's province and duty to forbid interference by another state or foreign power with status of its own citizens. Roberts v Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300
Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have also been very outspoken about the effects of the ACA. I wrote to both of them providing the very same information. They have both been silent. It makes sense that they would remain silent. Imagine a senator coming before the American people and informing us, "I am not as powerful as senators before me have led you to believe. Nor are they. You don't need us as much as you thought and 80% of the laws we passed have no legal force of authority in your state. You are the sovereigns, not the federal government, so just ignore us unless you live in a federal territory like Washington DC, Puerto Rico, or Guam. The rest of you can just go about your business."
This, of course, will never happen, unless this author wins a federal level election. At that point, once I swear in, I will fall under federal jurisdiction until such time as I am no longer sitting in that office.
So just because the federal government has passed a law, it does not mean that law has any affect on your life. Now if the idiots running the insurance companies would just hire competent lawyers, they would know it, too, and all those people who have lost their plans, could have kept them. It just goes to show that even an idiot can get promoted to the top of a corporation. Imagine the increased profits waiting to be made by the first insurance company that figures out this important fact and starts selling plans like it used to. Profits will soar, at least until such tome as other companies figure it out.