Probable Constitutional Challenges to ObamaCare
If the president signs H.R. 3590 (whether or not the bill is reconciled, “slaughter ruled,” and/or deemed in its passage), the legislation will be challenged on constitutional grounds. Let’s look at a few of the ways that federal control of health care, and H.R. 3590 in particular, is unconstitutional.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was asked where in the Constitution Congress was granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance policy. His answer:
Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.
Advertisement
The “general welfare” clause Hoyer was referring to is in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This section specifically enumerates the powers of Congress. (The list is very short. Congress has 17 listed, or “enumerated,” powers. Health care isn’t one of them.)
The first line of Article I, Section 8 states, in part:
The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States … [Emphasis added.]
Notice that this first sentence does not say, “The Congress shall have the Power to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.”
Every time the phrase “United States” is used in the Constitution, it denotes the federal (or central) government. This is clearly seen in Tenth Amendment where the “United States,” the “states,” and “the people” are three distinct concepts:
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [Emphasis added.]
It follows that the power to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States” only applies to the day-to-day operations of the federal government (e.g., Hoyer’s paycheck, hiring congressional staff, providing office furniture, etc.). The “general welfare” clause has nothing to do with the citizens of the United States. If it did, the list of enumerated powers that follow the clause, in Article I, Section 8, would have been redundant — since Congress would already have, from the “general welfare” clause, the power to do whatever it wanted to do to promote the welfare of the citizens of the United States. This is Hoyer’s claim.
Health care is reserved, according to the Constitution (especially given the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments), to the individual states and/or to the people.
But the words of the Constitution don’t seem to matter much to this Congress.
When Nancy Pelosi was asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Pelosi replied, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi may not think the Constitution is a serious matter, but some people do. The governor of the state of Idaho this week signed into law House Bill 391 — the “Idaho Health Freedom Act.” According to the AP, more than 35 other states are considering similar legislation.
“Constitution? Constitution? We don’t have to show you no stinkin’ Constitution!” Democrats, it sure seems, would love to say. Due process, equal protection under the law, etc. get in the way of “social justice,” you know.
Since yesterday I’ve had this phrase as a constant refrain going through my mind: Go ahead, make my day. (Thank you, dirty Harry (Clint)). Your article, Mr. Anderson, confirms my suspicions as to the full scope of the pandora’s box these miscreants have opened.
Already, the violence done to the legislative process by the 111th Congress, as O eggs them on, fully complicit, is breathtaking in its reach.
Sen. DeMint spoke presciently: This will be O’s Waterloo. And not a moment too soon!!!!!!!!!!
Is being forced to buy car insurance unconstitutional, for similar reasons? Why or why not? thanks-
Ken W:
There is a cosmic difference between car insurance and health insurance. First, the act of living and existing is an unalienable right. Review the Declaration of Independence, second Paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Cars did not even exist at the time our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. Our Framers did not include insurance of any type among the 17 enumerated rights granted to the Federal Government by Article I, Section 8.
Lest anyone think that insurance is a modern invention, in ancient Babylon creditors charged higher interest rates to merchants and traders in exchange for a promise to forgive the loan if pirates robbed the ship, or if it were captured and held for ransom. Insurance companies began to operate for profit in England during the seventeenth century. They devised mathematical tables to predict losses based on various data, including the characteristics of the insured and the probability of loss related to particular risks. Finally, many people today (even some very wealthy citizens in New York City) pursue life, liberty and happiness without even owning a car or having automobile insurance. They use a limousine service!
Driving a car, and having the necessary insurance, is a privilege, not a necessity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. One can live and pursue happiness without owning a car and without being forced to purchase insurance. If one does elect to own and operate a car, it is the STATE that requires one to have insurance, NOT the Federal Government. The STATE sets the minimum insurance necessary for the privilege of driving and for approving which insurance carriers may operate in a given state.
If you read the SCOTUS case, Gonzales vs. Oregon (Decided January 17, 2006), it is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government does not have the right to interfere with the patient-physician relationship as established by the individual States’ Rights granted under the Constitution. The main question in this case was “Did the Controlled Substances Act” (a Federal Statute) authorize the U.S. attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?
The Supreme Court’s Answer: No! In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice. (Note the reference to STATE not Federal Government in the Court’s answer.) Moreover, the CSA did not authorize Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized under state law to be illegitimate.
Embedded in the SCOTUS conclusion is the principle that the regulation of the practice of medicine is a State prerogative. In HR 3590 (Obamacare legislation) the Federal Government is usurping rights and powers that belong to the States and to the People. If one applies parallel logic, using the State’s right to regulate medicine, car registrations, insurance, etc., the conclusion is self-evident. The very real danger in chipping away at liberties and protections granted under the Constitution, is that if we allow one issue that is unconstitutional to become law today, then what happens tomorrow, the next day, next week, next month and in the years to come? Our Constitution would become nothing but Constitutional Confetti. Individual freedoms will be a dream rather than the guarantee we have won by hard work and the sacrificing of hundreds of thousands of American lives to defend freedom around the world.
Concerning healthcare, let us not forget that two words actually comprise one. They are health and care—not the words, rationing and debt. I submit that just as a jury of 12 peers can usually find consensus on the guilt or innocence of an accused, a similar group of 12 individuals endowed with common sense, reasonable intelligence and good faith could write a healthcare bill in the space of 25 to 50 pages. It would provide for the elimination of pre-existing conditions, eliminate frivolous law suits, make insurance available for purchase across state lines to drive down costs through competition, seriously attack the issue of insurance fraud and abuse especially in Medicare and Medicaid, and in brief, provide a subsidy to purchase good, basic health insurance for the truly needy. People here illegally can go back home to be cared for by their own countries. We could probably do all of this for less than the cost of creating the more than 150 new government bureaucracies and hiring 16,500 new IRS Agents provided in the current legislation.
Just as the success of the McDonalds hamburger franchise has proven the validity of the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!), why try to complicate the matter by trying to fix what is not broken? Through experience, we would soon learn what works and what does not in a bill that even Henry Waxman might be able to understand. And all of this, without mortgaging the nation and its children! Instead, we find ourselves burdened with additional taxes now in a near depression, but no real change until those responsible for Obamacare will be long-gone from office to bear the responsibility. The need to address issues like tort reform and purchasing insurance across state lines is obvious, yet our lawmakers did not even address these problems in the monstrosity that Congress spent over a year to gestate. In the process of fighting over abortion for more than a year, they have actually succeeded in giving birth to an abortion.
I will attempt to conclude with a comment on Nancy Pelosi’s quotation from the Declaration of Independence that she used on the day Obamacare passed the House. She quoted with hallmark authoritarian arrogance the first two sentences (which I cited above) from the Declaration of Independence, i.e. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” How convenient that she did not quote the next sentences that directly follow. These refer to the just-cited “unalienable rights.” The very next sentences say: “That to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED (Author’s emphasis). That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to establish new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to insure their safety and happiness.”
The Constitution of the United States contains only 4,400 words (It will fit using the same font and print size used in printing bills on about 17 sides of 8½ x 11″ paper, i.e., 8 ½ sheets!)Yet our Congress concocts a deliberately confusing healthcare bill that is 2,700 pages in length; a bill riddled with Constitutional violations! If you will read Federalist Paper 62 by James Madison, the beginning of Section 4, you will see how prophetic one of our Framers was. In the context of talking about the damage done (economically and politically) by constantly changing government policies, Madison said referring to laws passed by Congress “It will avail the people very little that they are written by men of their own choice if they be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. No man who knows what the law is today can possibly guess what it will be tomorrow.” How apropos of Nancy Pelosi to proclaim, “I guess we will have to pass the healthcare bill to know what is in it!”
Do Madison’s words sound familiar to what is happening in Congress today? You might also read Federalist Paper 78 by Alexander Hamilton wherein he discusses the obligation of both the Legislature and the Courts to follow the Constitution. In addition, I would urge all to remember that in the long tradition of Western jurisprudence, from Aristotle, through Aquinas through English Common Law, through great legal minds like Blackstone, a pivotal question at the heart of Western Law is “Where does the law exist?” The answer is that the law exists “in the mind of the lawgiver.” This is why Senator Byrd (D. from VA) urged the President and all his colleagues in the Senate NOT to use the process of Reconciliation to pass healthcare. Years earlier, Byrd made the same plea to President Clinton, who, to his credit, listened to the “lawgiver” and refused to use Reconciliation to pass Hillarycare. As one of its authors, Byrd made it very clear that Reconciliation was NEVER INTENDED to pass major legislation but only to reconcile budgetary and tax issues. This is a classic case of a lawgiver telling us clearly the intent of the legislation. We heard it straight from the mouth of “the mind of the lawgiver.” Yet Congress under Obama’s direction chose to ignore the author of the process, ignore the majority of the People, and, like it or not, America, here is what we think is best for you!
How do our Senators and Representatives reconcile the oaths they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, while bribing members with a quid pro quo to vote for so many unconstitutional provisions? How does President Obama, who has clearly said in an interview preserved for posterity that “our Constitution is fundamentally flawed) swear such allegiance to the Constitution without any mental reservations? When the end justifies the means, as we have witnessed in Saul-Alinsky-driven, Chicago politics, how near is our end?
When our elected representatives lose their moral compass, their obligation to follow due process, and to adhere to the Constitution, what is our obligation as citizens and voters? Do we simply stand lemming-like as we look in the mirror of history to see a strong and determined people willingly sacrifice themselves, and our great Nation, to the whims of tyranny? Or do we return to the principles chiseled in the Document, our Constitution, that has produced what is unquestionably the greatest nation in the annals of mankind?
There are those who hold that our Constitution was never meant to be a permanent beacon to guide us through good times and bad, but rather an ever-evolving Document, bendable to suit the aims of those who would “transform America” in their own image and likeness. To those “Constitutional Evolutionists” I say listen to your heart, but also to Abraham Lincoln who admonished us, “Never change anything in the Constitution.”
I submit that our future actually lies in the past rather than in the future, in today’s “progressive” thinking that would place the State above all else. Lincoln also predicted the ultimate source of our demise as a nation, if that is to be our fate. He spoke these words as a young, 28-year-old lawyer long before becoming our 16th President. Lincoln made this address in 1838 to The Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. For those of you unfamiliar with this potentially prophetic speech, let me quote a few lines and urge you to read it, for it perhaps foretells our future.
In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.–We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us.
. . . At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.
The German and Russian people never dreamed that they would eventually lose all personal freedoms to the likes of the Gestapo and the Russian KGB.
For the future of America and the freedom for which it stands, I say that we tell politicians of all parties who would rob us of our freedoms, dignity and our wealth — personal, national and spiritual— “satis” “ lux perpetua luceat nobis” et “salva nos!”
Alan Pratt, Ph.D.
The problem with all of this reasoning is that the people who will interpret the law, and apply their interpretation, may not see the Constitution in such clear terms. Remember, the “Constitutional” right to an abortion was found by the Supreme Court, and they also have managed to distinguish between the First and Second Amendments, making one apply to the Federal government, and state and local government also, while the other only applies to the Feds. Amazingly, the Amendment that begins “Congress shall make no law…” applies to the states and locals also, while the Amendment that ends “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” only applies to the Federal government, even though the wording is much more vague and seems to imply *no one* shall infringe those rights. If the Dems want the courts to, and the courts comply, protection of the right of free speech will somehow mandate compulsory health insurance. Trust me, they’ll find a rationale for this. It won’t make any sense to ordinary people, but then so much of what they do already doesn’t.
I would think that legal action against ObozoCare could be taken through the “commerce clause” as well…not sure exactly how,but my ‘legal intuition’ tells me that is a possible avenue of approach to it.
“Unconstitutional” is neo-con code for “black.” You are a racist bigot.
Friend Alice,
The U.S. Constitution is the most sacred document in our judicial and political systems. It is at the beginning and at the heart of our form of government. The 111th Congress is strongly suggesting it is not all that sacred anymore. I just spent the last hour reading comments by people who feel the provisions of our Constitution are being ignored or destroyed. As far as I can tell, not one of these commentators feels race is an issue. Can you explain to me who, exactly, is the racist bigot?
Friend Pitts
Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to overturn socialized medicine?
SCOTUS members are creatures of government, not of the people. The idea that in their hands the constitution keeps congress from passing any law they want is a quaint myth. Get over it.
Larrey Anderson — Thanks for writing this most concise rundown of some of the constitutional chellenges the “healthcare bill” faces. Obama is attempting a coup d’etat. He and it be stopped.
Or any congress since the Interstate Highways Act was passed.
The weapons that have been deployed against the Constitution and the rights of Americans to such stunning effect are gradualism and crisisism. I once thought those were two entirely separate tactics, but it appears that crisisism — the fostering of a “we’ve got to act now mentality in the citizenry — actually prepares the ground for gradualist incursions upon Constitutional constraints. It does that by wearying the citizenry and by the “ratchet action” usurpations of power (Isabel Paterson) have induced over the decades.
The Supreme Court is not unaffected by these tools. Despite all the ludicrous overreachings of Congress in employing the Interstate Commerce Clause to insert its snout into every area of human life, the Court has overruled Congress in only one case: the federal ban on carrying a firearm near a school. See my colleague Remus’s piece on the derivation of new “law” from explicit statutes for a few more thoughts — and reflect on how seldom the courts have obstructed these novel techniques for criminalizing peaceable citizens.
In short: Don’t expect the Court to save us from ObamaCare.
#3 Ken
I believe that is a state requirement. The constitution provides a list of federal governmnet powers. A list that ends. All other powers are granted to the individual states. The authors feared a powerful central government and limited them on purpose.
I learned this in Jr. High in 1972.
There are no longer Red states and Blue states.
Look at the stats. Unemployment, crime, welfare,….
There are Red states and DEAD states.
If I purchase a car and choose to never drive it on a taxpayer provided road (do you think NASCAR has no fault insurance rules?), I don’t have to buy car insurance. My mother no longer drives – she doesn’t pay for car insurance. My sister has never driven – she has never paid for car insurance. The car inurance argument has always seemed particularly specious.
“Is being forced to buy car insurance unconstitutional, for similar reasons? Why or why not?”
First of all Congress does not require you to buy auto liability insurance. That is regulated by your state. So much for constitutionality.
Secondly, liability coverage is simply meant to cover the damage that you can cause to another driver unlike collision. Its a simple concept. A concept that the simpleton in the White House still can not grasp yet he has the audacity to want to run our healthcare industry.
Thirdly, mandatory auto liability coverage does not try to take over our educational system, student loans, require data bases on your personal health, have government takeover of private insurance companies, demand racial quotas for entry into college which will affect who your doctors, nurses, lab techs will be etc. etc. and on and on.
Regardless of today’s vote Obamcare must be crushed and this tyrant must relegated to the trash bin of history.
Ken W….the requirement for car insurance is placed to grant the privilege of driving a car (in some States to merely own one and register it).
Obamacare mandates are telling us that the purchase of insurance is a requirement to breathe.
A rather significant difference wouldn’t you agree?
This is not about healthcare anyway and to think otherwise is at best naive. It is about control of significant pieces of the economy. Within a year of the mandate to provide insurance for pre-existing conditions, the insurance companies will leave the field for a non-government system.
The unknown commodity is the providers side. What portion of the current system will continue to provide Obamacare? Hospitals will be unsustainable when there is nowhere to shift the cost of government underfunding…none will survive the addition of 16 million Medicaid and an equal number of Medicare clients. Look for the States to opt out starting with CA, NY, FL and AZ and look for the feds to try to require providers to participate.
Going to Medical school now is like signing onto the Titanic as a “wiper”.
I agree with Canuck. This isn’t about healthcare, but about power and the quest to make it limitless. If the Supreme Court fails to strike down this legislation, they may just as well adjourn and go home forever and take the Constitution with them. Then watch TeamObama begin to round up and silence opposing voices.
Ken,
Car insurance is a state mandate.
Unless we replace everyone who votes for this abomination…the Constitution may well be as dead as the tenth amendment within it.
This is an historical moment folks, and our last chance might well lay in Anthony Kennedy…I am not hopeful.
Ken W.
First of all, driving is not a right it is a privilege. Second you can choose to have that privilege or not. Third if you choose to have that privilege you must purchase auto insurance. Since there is choice involved it is not unconstitutional.
They should get former Library of Congress Historian Paul Madison to argue the case. See his brilliant short discussion of the meaning of regulating commerce:
http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html
Ken: Being required to buy automobile insurance is not unconstitutional, because driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.
Ken W:
Driving a car is a very different thing, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the laws that require us to have car insurance are state laws, not federal laws. Moreover, driving is not a right but a privilege. We drive at the pleasure of our state and local governments, and it is therefore within their purview to regulate our driving.
But we do not live at the pleasure of the government–any government, at any level. Indeed, as the Founders acknowledged, life is the most fundamental of human rights. This health care abomination is an attempt not only to further regulate our lives, but to regulate our very living.
All responses to Ken W. #3 are well and good…but miss one basic (and obvious) point:
Ken, no one forces you to buy a car.
*If* you choose to do so, then, as others above point out, there are state regulations on such.
Bad – but oft cited – comparison.
The single greatest danger in this business isn’t that the government will be seizing control of about one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Or that in the end, the national health care system will become the single most expensive item in the budget, rendering us incapable of affording much of anything else. (Consider what paying for their own rickety “National Health” systems has done to the UK and France, especially in terms of their military/defense capabilities).
The single biggest danger in this is that the President and the Democratic leadership have decided that this is a “good cause” which justifies them in violating the Constitution, both in the way they intend to pass it (i.e., without actually allowing a vote, which they are apparently sure they would lose), and in enforcing it (giving a revenue-collection agency, the IRS, what amounts to broad powers to charge, arrest, fine or even jail citizens- for not purchasing goods or services from private entities).
This “the end justifies the means” mindset is how dictatorships begin. Not that this should surprise anyone, as those pushing this are for the most part typical examples of the pseudo-intellectual academic crowd who have been incensed at the rest of us since the 1960s- for not giving them absolute power over the rest of us.
Obama and company have, in my opinion, made the classic “tyrant’s error”, also known to “Star Trek” fans as the “Gill Fallacy”. Namely, they believe that the mechanisms of tyranny can be employed benignly to achieve good ends. The problem is that, as always, those in charge are defining both the means and the ends as “good”, hence there are no checks or balances on their actions.
If this is passed in this manner, an impartial assessment of the process would force the inevitable conclusion that those involved (The President, the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, etc.) had willfully and deliberately violated the Constitution to do so. This meets the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in said document. And the Constitution provides only one remedy for such offenses on the part of elected officials.
They must be impeached. And since the Senate is involved in the offense, they will have to be tried by the Supreme Court of the United States.
clear ether
eon
Constitutional hurricanes is a pathetic joke.
Jail time.
Imprisonment.
Loss of privileges.
Loss of retirement.
Heavy fines and penalties.
Anything else is simply peeing into the wind.
“Every time the phrase “United States” is used in the Constitution, it denotes the federal (or central) government. This is clearly seen in Tenth Amendment where the “United States,” the “states,” and “the people” are three distinct concepts…” It seems to me they always forget that the word “United” is an adjective modifying “States”; “United States” is not a two-word noun!
#3 Ken
Everyone does not have to buy car insurance.
The requirement by states that drivers must have car insurance applies only to the liability side, for the protection of the other driver…not for the protection of the owner of the car. (Unless there is a lien, in which case collision is required as well, for the protection of the financial interest of the party holding the lien.)
The requirement is a requirement for the driver to have personal injury/medical coverage for himself for a car accident. That part of the policy is always an option for the driver/car owner–not a requirement.
It’s very different.
Obviously, I meant “The requirement is NOT a requirement…”
“11. Beatlejuice:
#3 Ken
I believe that is a state requirement. The constitution provides a list of federal governmnet powers. A list that ends. All other powers are granted to the individual states. The authors feared a powerful central government and limited them on purpose.
I learned this in Jr. High in 1972.”
Indeed, but do not expect the libtard you replied too, to understand what you are talking about.
They are called the ‘left” for a reason. Like for the left side of the IQ bell curve they inhabit.
Well, well, Dr. Bones! Marx was not always wrong: the Kiddie Selfservativism of A. R. 1431/2010/5770 is certainly managin’ to make a swell neofarce out of THIS show the second time round!
One point seems plain here, sir: this outstandin’ly exuberant specimen of Party-’n’-AEIdeology dingalingery–”writer, philosopher, and submissions editor”–never so much as heard of Round the First.[1] Maybe we donkeys shan’t be able to prevail about public medicine any time soon, Dr. Bones, but we are most assuredly not goin’ to let such a bozo edit *our* submission. Indeed, there is not going to be any submission to edit!
Not knowin’ much history has some rather odd consequences with alumnuses of Wombschool State University and St. Dilbert Antistate College, it looks like. Mr. Santayana of H*rv*rd did not, as I recall, ever foresee wingnut kiddies reënactin’ several quite different tragedies all smashed into one solemn neofarce. Mr. Madison and Col. Hamilton and the Gang of Eighty-Seven in general are not, perhaps, totally shoved off the stage, but they do not look altogether comfortable doing an ideological can-can beside Miss Rand and Mr. Galt from Planet Dilbert, and Freiherr Freddy von Hayek of Old Vienna, and the _¡nie pozwalam!_ of Ancient Poland, not to speak of various other assorted bits of Pol. Sci. flotsam and jetsam esteemed at Hooverville and Wingnut City.
It might be fun, actually, to visit Neocomrade L. Anderson’s parallel universe to check out the sky colour and see the sights and talk to the natives and locals. The question of living there does not arise, of course: I am not even sure that the Department of Virtue and Wisdom would grant the likes of the Muses and you and me a tourist visa.
Closer to home, did you listen to Neocomrade Dr. R. Limbaugh’s yesterday performance? For once HIMSELF managed to exhibit a certain degree of measure, callin’ upon Neocomrade M. Levine, Esq., to evaluate some Kiddie Konstitutionalism [http://tinyurl.com/yh6ob6a] rather along Master Larrey’s lines and then, _mirabile dictu_, acceptin’ a thumbs-down on it.
(( Would you happen to know, Dr. Bones, if Incline Valley NV is located near the celebrated Slippery Slope? ))
And I wish you, sir,
Healthy days.
__
[1] Nepotic piety makes me prefer to recommend my Uncle Bob’s books [http://tinyurl.com/yzlftqt] to the kiddie’s kinda (and gentla) neo-attention, but no doubt the legal underpinnings of the Great Barbecue™ has been scribbled about extensively by others probably equally competent and certainly a good deal more recent.
*** DIGRESSION follows ***
Not extensively enough, however, if, as the pet google just discovered, the learnèd wikipædiatricians can discourse about the G.B. at some length [http://tinyurl.com/rv7wa] and mention neither the Slaughterhouse Cases of Year IV (A.R. 1290/1873/ 5632) nor “Lochner v. New York” from Year XXXVI (A. R. 1323/1905/5664), let alone any lesser juridical events in between or subsequent to the two landmark biggies. Can it be that the wikigentry are strict Pscientific Socialists who cannot bring themselves to recognize courts and Rulalaw as more than mere ‘superstructure’ — and therefore negligible? Father Zeus knows best.
Be that as it may, Dr. Bones, let us get our calendars synchronized. I date the Party-of-Grant Era from, oddly enough, the first inauguration of Himself, “4 March 1869,” as that dark day would have been styled by most of the auditors.
That little scrap of specifically Christian Christojudæanity corresponds to a specifically Hebrew ditto of “21 ’Adar Ha Ri’shôn 5629.” The now Masters of the Universe would say “20 Dhú l-Qa‘da 1285.” And almost any (non-womb)schoolboy could figure out that Ulysses XVII began happenin’ during the ninety-seventh year of the independence of the United States of America. (I betcha a few of them could even manage something about “fourscore and seventeen years,” especially if you place your order well in advance.)
Once such a verbonumerical gizmo get started, of course, it can never come to a true end. I fear Uncle Bob, being a creature of his time, would have assumed that nobody will ever need anything much beyond the Year of Grant LIV (which began in Y.R. 1351/1933/5692), even as there is scant current demand for Years of Robespierre beyond “_10 Nivôse an XIV_” [http://tinyurl.com/yrvkdf] or Years of Mussolini beyond the first dozen or so [ http://tinyurl.com/czcp65.
And Father Zeus knows best about these questions also.
“20. Cap’n Rusty:
Ken: Being required to buy automobile insurance is not unconstitutional, because driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.”
Actually I would have to disagree with that.
The oft cited canard that driving is a “privilege” is simply what the State has claimed for so long that we the People(or most of us anyways) go along with it and may actually believe such a Statist power grab as legitimate.
I would argue instead that being able to move from one location to another is a basic right of a free People. Would you not agree? If so, then it follows that using whatever mode of transport which is common to the day is also a right.
While not strictly enumerated in the “Bill of Rights” as such. I suspect our forefathers would not only have laughed.. but indeed taken up arms against any government which said that riding their horse was a State granted privilege and not their Right.
I spent 30 years defending this country and its constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. That was part of my oath. It would appear we have domestic enemies wiping their bottoms on our constitution. obama has mocked the members of the Supreme Court because he does not hold precious constitutional law. He wants to be king, not president. We have congressional officials voted into office under the pretense of representing the people. Yet these same officials refuse to represent the will of the people who pay them and voted them into office while lining their own pockets with sweetheart deals.
Eon, you are correct, this is tyranny. Socialism does not work, look at Europe today. Socialism/communism under a dictatorship is what North Korea has. When legally elected officials ignore the will of the people and start “dictating” law while circumventing the constitutional system of checks and balances, they become dictators. This is extremely dangerous ground and the Supreme Court of these United States best be ready as it appears they will be “the peoples’” last line of defense against these tyrants.
#3 Ken:
1) because you are not required to own a car. IF you CHOOSE to own a car, you must insure it…what is the health insurance equivalent? IF you CHOOSE to engage in biological life processes you must have insurance!? So, whereas if I don’t want car insurance I can elect not to buy a car, but if I don’t want health insurance I have to commit suicide? When liberals bring up that argument, it shows just how little they understand what they’re talking about.
2) is the requirement to buy car insurance a FEDERAL requirement? I believe the states have their requirements. Pursuant to that, there’s nothing in the 10th Amendment that would prohibit a state from partially or fully socializing health insurance, but the FEDERAL government is absolutely prohibited from doing so. The framers realized that different communities might want different things from their government…this way, if you want socialized health care, you can move to a state that has it or try to get it passed in your own state. If you don’t want it, you can try to have it repealed in your own state or move to a state with a system more to your liking. If the Federal government is doing it, you have nowhere to go, and thus have one of your inalienable rights infringed. The same was supposed to be true of everything from income tax to public education
Ken W, operating a car without insurance is not illegal. Operating a car on the public funded road system is. You can drive uninsured all you want on your own private property. You don’t even need a registration.
My health insurance (I’m in FL) runs $520 per month. Ditto my husband’s. Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. We’re both healthy. That’s $1040 PER MONTH! We can’t afford it…but we PAY IT!!!! We give up other things because health insurance is a NECESSITY!
What happens to people who have no health insurance because they would rather spend their money on vacations, wine with dinner, beer & cigarettes, etc. What happens if they have to be admitted to the hospital? What happens if their bill is, say $8000? Of course they have no savings. What happens to their bill? Are their wages garnished? Do they have to pay the $8000 via their state taxes? Does the $8000 show up on their credit report, making sure they cannot finance a house or car until the $8000 is paid? Are they required to refinance their house in order to pay their bill? How do the doctor & hospital get their money?
What happens if someone has no health insurance but wants health care in a NON-LIFE THREATENING situation? Do any of you know?
You guys have gone from throwing rocks to throwing pebbles.
Yeah, let’s constitutionally ban having to buy any form of insurance, from car to liability. Health insurance is no different — as it has been pointed out before to apparent slack-jawed incomprehension, there is already defacto, but grossly inefficient and costly universal health care in place: if you are injured or ill but can’t afford normal heath care, you can just hit up an emergency room and they’ll have to treat you. That sort of thing impacts everyone just as much as uninsured drivers getting into accidents that damage property, although the costs tend be much more diffused in the latter. Actually I came across a bit regarding car insurance that indirectly but curiously rather neatly sums up the need for mandatory health insurance. It’s at the bottom of this piece:
This is why, upon deep reflection, even the most strident libertarian has to agree that mandatory insurance laws are indeed fair. If insurance were entirely optional, then responsible drivers would have to purchase uninsured motorists coverage, and in an anarchist insurance environment, those premiums would be astronomical. In other words, the responsible drivers would be paying for the sins of the irresponsible, while in our current system, whatever its flaws, the reverse is mostly true.
Re the Constitution: although Obama’s a lawyer—we’re told—he made it very clear, in Bret Baier’s fine interview with him, that process is merely to be sniffed at. “What’s that to me or the American people?” he clearly implied.
I’ve considered Obama a weasel from day one, but his astonishing arrogance and sheer wrong headedness and bloody mindedness here really shocked me.
God bless—and help—America!
If the “general welfare’ clause covers compulsory health insurance with heavy penalties for not getting it, then the constitution means nothing and the federal government has whatever powers it wants. I don’t think the Obami have a problem with that.
<i3. Ken W:
Is being forced to buy car insurance unconstitutional, for similar reasons? Why or why not? thanks-
No it is not unconstitutional because it is not a Federal law. Automobile insurance is not mandatory in all states and is in fact a state law. Until about 2002 or so insurance was not mandatory in the State of Tennessee it went into effect on January 1 2002. Each State has different insurance laws, it is not s Federal law.
TO: DavidN, #5:
Have faith friend! On March 1st the Supreme Court took on the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to the states. I can’t imagine that the justices who found an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller are going to find that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states.
The great issue is that Obama the great leader and “healer” (as I heard him called) is the most devisive president I known in my life span. This debate over health care is really the age old debate between “haves” and “have nots”, except unlike in Tiberius Grachus’ time, the “haves” are now ordinary people that get up at 5:30 am and work hard 6 days a week to make a better life. The “have nots” are often overweight people who own a TV, cell phone and a car, spend hours a day before the TV and on the internet, but simply can’t “afford health insurance”. Obama has brought to a boil the differences bewteen those who wish to work and sacrifice and those who wish to surf the web all day and eat fast food 7 times a week. For the first time in my life I’m actually starting to despise many of my fellow “Americans”. My blood is starting to boil. Obama, “great healer”?
24. Msmensa:
The answer to all of your questions is another question: What state do they live in? In most states, they would, and rightly should need to pay off that debt. In most cases a debt like that could be paid off over time. Also, the theoretical that you are proposing has a lot more moving parts than it implies. If you want to play 20 questions, you need to provide real world questions. So more details, please.
BTW, $520? Thats a huge amount. What gives? I just added up the cost of my health insurance for myself and my wife….it’s less than $200 and we have “cadillac” insurance. Yes, I work for a big company.
The funny thing is, they created this myth that uninsured people drive up everyone else’s healthcare costs. Uninsured get problems, then the hospitals treat them anyway, then pass the costs onto the rest of us.
Well, that’s because the Feds passed a law requiring the hospitals to treat everyone. This was an illegal taking in and of itself. It took the money and services of the hospitals, driving many of them into bankruptcy.
They create the problem via government, and then offer as the solution… even more government!
I’m waiting for some damn corporation to stand up and say, “Enough! We will no longer pay for this stuff! You can’t make us! You have no authority!” I’m not holding my breath, though.
“Auto-Insurance” argument is not an apples-to-apples comparison, so it is pointless.
In addition to the privilege/right federal/state points well expressed in other posts, the use of analogy has to remain consistent. If our body is going to be compared to our car, and our body is going to be required to be insured for its health, then the correct analogy is our car must be insured for its “health”, or car repair. We are not required to buy auto-repair insurance.
People- remember all this come November, and take our country back.
It’s very thin ice, almost ludicrous, to attempt to justify this current government’s healthcare boondoggle on the basis of the language “provide for the…general Welfare of the United States” in Article I, section 8.
Other people, besides Steny, have pointed to the promote the General Welfare statement in the Constitution’s Preamble.
Nancy The Dominatrix doesn’t understand the notion of limitations on her power at all. Her attitude seems to be that her Congressional charges, the boyz and girlz, better do her bidding or Momma’s gonna crack the whip.
Ludicrousness piled upon ludicrousness in a democrat effort to ensure their own power and make themselves necessary for the duration of the Republic, which looks to be about 24 hours now.
This shouldn’t be happening at all. That it’s happening under the collusion of Barack and Nancy is a horror show.
There is another matter that Democrats don’t seem to consider when dealing with the Supreme Court and that they are people who hold a grudge. After Obama dissed them in the State of the Union Address I have a feeling that the Court will look for any excuse to show that the Supreme Court has teeth and is not to be trifled with. This legislation, if passed, might be that oportunity. If the Court is in a really foul mood they might not tailor their ruling to only apply to Health Care but might actually reverse previous courts rulings regarding the Commerce Clause which was twisted out of shape during FDR’s term. I just have a feeling that being human they want a little payback and this might be their opportunity.
When you think HOW MUCH careful this administration is in evaluating the RIGHTS of the terrorists and every single law that can/could/should/must be respected in their prosecution… today’s show in Congress becomes absolutely disgusting.
Newest Rasmussen – ugly, ugly, ugly:
As of Sat 8 am. PST, Obama has slipped to 43 % – also Rasmussen will release their weekend tracking poll Sunday morning, instead of waiting for Monday -
It’s so typical of the Leftoid brain to draw some kind of parallel between states requiring automobile insurance if you drive a car and the federal government, for the first time in history, attempting to mandate the purchasing of health insurance for all persons.
Simplistic and knee jerk is as good as it gets with the Leftoid brain.
But continuing the stupid parallel for a minute, under the parameters of the current healthcare boondoggle, you could buy auto insurance the minute you smashed your car into the semi truck. Before that, you could just pay the much lower penalty for not purchasing the insurance, as any half brained individual will do with the new “healthcare” legislation, buy it the day the diagnosis of cancer comes in and pay the much lower penalty until that day comes.
Listen to the Dominatrix or Plugs…they’re both obsessed with the notion that private insurance needs to be “regulated”.
While their own Cadillac, taxpayer funded plan, guaranteed for life and after they leave “public service” (could that be tomorrow? please ?) will not be subject to any of the machinations and bureaucratic holocaust they want to impose onto you in terms of access to healthcare services.
And how long to reach “single payer” (the real goal) when private insurers are required to cover pre-existing conditions ? A month or two before the private healthcare insurance industry is toast ?
Tying up the courts, even with valid, legitimate “Constitutional” objections seems like another decades long travesty on the horizon.
None of this should be happening in the first place.
“Ken W:
Is being forced to buy car insurance unconstitutional, for similar reasons? Why or why not? thanks-
Mar 20, 2010 – 1:33 am”
Prof. Randy Barnett, Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown and Nathanial Stewart have written a lengthy (and somewhat complex, but very precise) essay on the issue of constitutionality.
He concludes that the individual mandate is NOT constitutional. He goes beyond discussing principles of law to examine several actual SCOTUS cases that indicate they would agree with his conclusion.
What we have here is a Circulation of Elites,
with the states replacing the federal government,
as the collapsing economy erodes both the people’s
tolerance of the Feds, and the Feds Tax-and-Spend
control over the states, which is the Feds _only_
means of controlling the states or the people.
Even the British know this, though their situation
has one critical difference: Their military is loyal
to the Crown, and ours to the Constitution.
See: http://www.educationforum.co.uk/sociology_2/pareto.htm
I predicted many months ago that Mr. Obama would provoke a constitutional crisis before we are done with him. The disdain of the Marxist/Democrats for the rule of law is now clear to everyone. Their arrogance is truly breathtaking. No president has tried this sort of power grab since Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court. So, what’s next?
A voter backlash in November will weaken the current administration to the point of lame duck status. That’s good news. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s totalitarian instincts will likely bring out the “czar card.” He’ll try to rule through executive fiat. Expect also the “race card” if congress attempts impeachment proceedings. This will likely lead to widespread civil disorder in our inner cities.
The other possibility is that Mr. Obama suffers a psychological breakdown and is forced to resign. Expect his decisions to get more irrational and erratic as the crisis reaches its penultimate stage. Narcissistic personality disorder ends in self-pity and a desire lash out at perceived enemies. That will include members of Obama’s inner circle. A tell-all book from someone close to him will reveal that the president is no longer mentally competent to serve. End of game, but not before a significant amount of damage is inflicted on our institutions and our national infrastructure. Yes, it’s going to get real ugly before this is over.
We have let Marxism fester in our Universities too long. Our counter attack needs to be ruthless and far reaching. I am a reactionary now.
This health care bill is a massive expansion of IRS powers, just that fact alone tells you the danger we are in.
29. JHM dba “Publius Iunior”:
LSD as a second language, maybe…?
The biggest issue with the tyrannical takeover of the most sacred element of personal liberty, is the power it gives liberals to control and dictate almost every aspect of our lives. Soon they’ll be telling you what you can and cannot eat and what activities you can participate in.
It starts a very slippery slope towards total dictatorship of many, by the few. If they can force you to buy insurance and dictate what type of insurance you can purchase, it’s not hard to imagine that the next thing to happen will be the mandate that we purchase US Treasuries as part of 401K plans. In other words, they’ll make us pay for their wreckless spending, one way or another.
The unintended consequences of heavy handed legislation are what these jackasses never consider. Doctors are going to leave the profession and health care will be almost exclusively provided by nurses.
For what it’s worth, the people who replied to Ken W. all missed one major point: no person is forced to have car insurance; it is the car that must be covered. That is why they call it – wait for this – CAR insurance [or more typically, automobile insurance]. If you borrow a friend’s car [presumably with his permission] and the car is covered, you can drive it all you want without ever having to purchase “car insurance” yourself. The typical charge for driving when there is no insurance coverage is “operating an uninsured motor vehicle”. It is also true that there is no federal “car insurance” mandate.
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson thought the carriage ride from Philadelphia back to Virginia was a privilege, rather than a right
Obamacare may never be implemented.
When the Republican House is invested next January, every funding bill will contain language forbidding the executive departments (HHS, IRS, etc.) from spending any money on implementing the legislation. As a result, taxes will never be raised to fund the initiative, new govt agencies will never be created, etc.
Such a scenario could set up a 1996-style government shudown confrontation between the House on one side and Obama and potentially a Democratic-controlled Senate on the other, if they refuse to approve the House spending bills involving the affected agencies. The question will be whether the electorate will reward the Democrats for the stalemate, as happened in 1996, or the Republicans.
also- debating car insurance requirements doesn’t change the fact that the current administration and congressional leadership see the Constitution as an obstacle to be circumvented, rather than the supreme law of the land to be obeyed
15. canuck: ‘Hospitals will be unsustainable when there is nowhere to shift the cost of government underfunding…none will survive the addition of 16 million Medicaid and an equal number of Medicare clients.’
Yes, this is the part most people don’t get either. I work in a hospital that is already heavily patronized by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. It’s already a financial strain. I can’t wait to have health coverage for care that I won’t be able to get when my place of employment goes out of business and leaves me unable to get another job because all other businesses will be downsizing and closing altogether because they can’t afford to re-tool their current group health plans into the new plan requirements of this bill.
If they violate our constitution on this one, what will be the next bill they ram through? I shudder at the thought.
When can we get life insurance?
Everyone needs life insurance?
AIG could become Americans Interested in Government Life Insurance.
No pre-existing conditions,
grandma doesn’t have to wait to die.
To lighten things up just a bit, I heard that Mark Levin is considering challenging Obamacare once it is law. I can imagine it now, Levin putting forth his case and when someone like Sotomeyer goes to ask a question he comes back with something like this: “It’s the way the Founding Fathers, who by the way are way more intelligent than you, wrote the Constitution. Get off my bench you jerk.”
On November 4, 2008 the United States of America became formally a Third World country; in that we adopted the People’s Republic of China system with a ruling Communist Party (we call it here the Democratic Party), a stock market and a private sector managed by the government, levels of corruption equivalent to those in any of these Third World countries (ie, in the hundreds of millions of dollars/yuan), with birth rates at or exceeding the World’s average, a flexible constitution to be interpreted at the pleasure of the Great Leader and cult figure, and indeed an Indonesian/Kenyan/American President showcasing the new Nation.
In response, I felt obligated to have my name appropriately modified, and started learning Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Indonesian and Belem Portuguese. My religion is now a mix of atheism, shi’it islam, and vodoo christianity. In the long run, as I see it, everyone here (whatever that “here” means) will become an average mix of a Chinese/Indian/Indonesian/Pakistani/Brazilian/Nigerian peasant.
But on the bright side, I’m going to have a nice health insurance.
Alice, are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet? How can “unconstitutional” possibly be a code word for “black” when “unconstitutional” does not describe a person?
What are you willing to ‘sacrifice’ including your own ‘individual selves’ for ’0bamacare’?:
Michelle Obama Flashback</a
#63 – M.B.
This won’t be the last time you will hear the words “racist” when bringing up the “unconstitutionality” of Obamacare…
It will be the one of the MAJOR charges thrown at those who seek to end this debacle. A last straw grasp for a law so promoted by our first “black” President, and also a new glorious government entitlement so wonderfully utilized by those in need (i.e., black?)…so look for it.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the charge thrown at the Supreme Court when this charade is struck down!
baal #40,
We’re ALL insurance-poor here in FL. Yes, I really pay $520/mo and have zero health problems. Plus I have the highest allowable deductible…$2000/yr. And NOT a Cadillac plan. My carrier is Blue Cross/Blue Shield of FL which is our area’s largest health insurer. There’s nothing unusual about my policy except that I’m self-employed and am 63 yrs old. When my husband and I reach Medicare age, we’ll get a $12,480/yr raise!!!! I’m sure the FL carriers are lobbying heavily against the proposed “Buy your insurance from ANY state” proposal!
Larrey, I believe the thrust of your observations are essentially correct, even without – as you note – getting very deeply into the myriad Constitutional problems with the imposition of socialized medicine on American citizens.
That said, please note carefully the specific words in Hoyer’s imbecilic statement: “…in promoting the general welfare…”. Clearly this was NOT a reference to Art. I Sec. 8 at all. Rather, Hoyer was referring to the Constitution’s purpose and justification, as described in its Preamble, i.e., “We the People of the United States, in Order to … promote the general Welfare, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The difference is critical. Hoyer blindly parroted the standard, knee-jerk lie ALL leftists are indoctrinated to spew when asked what provides the Constitutional authority to pursue their “benevolent” collectivist agenda. This lie directly and purposefully exploits general ignorance of the Constitution itself.
Hoyer went on to assert the fundamental fallacy which derives from that lie, i.e., “the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end.” This is complete and utter nonsense, and anyone who’s actually read the Constitution knows this. The truth is just the opposite of Hoyer’s lie: the Constitution intentionally specifies very narrow authority granted to Congress.
Both Madison and Jefferson were quite explicit regarding Congress’ authority with respect to promoting the general welfare:
James Madison:
Thomas Jefferson:
Hoyer has either never bothered to educate himself on this rather obvious Constitutional point (to say nothing of the marxist cipher in the White House who alleges himself a “Constitutional Law Professor”) or he is deceitfully and unethically exploiting the general ignorance of the Founders’ intent in this regard.
My tax dollars are on the latter, for the following reasons.
Congress lacks any constitutional authority whatsoever to mandate the purchase of health care insurance, or to dictate to American citizens what will be considered “acceptable” insurance. Yet, in usurping this authority and arrogating to themselves the power to dictate how American citizens must spend their wealth, the socialists now running the federal government have undertaken to promote and expand what is arguably the most aggravating factor driving skyrocketing health care costs. THOSE COSTS – and not a lack of insurance – are the crux of the health care “crisis”, as Paul Ryan has noted.
INSURANCE IS A TOOL FOR MITIGATING FINANCIAL RISK. It should NOT be used to pay for every dollar of routine health care we consume. And routine health care – health care which entails no risk whatever, as it is an ongoing necessity of life just like food, clothing, utilities, living quarters, transportation and an iPod® – is the vast majority of health care consumed.
By paying for a commodity using an insurance policy – as promoted by decades of government meddling in the health care market – we have destroyed the economic relationship between the provider and consumer. That relationship is what keeps prices for all OTHER commodities – those we don’t pay for through the abuse of insurance – relatively affordable.
Not only that, but we have effectively collectivized payment for that commodity through the abuse of group insurance policies. These “Spread The Cost Around” (sound familiar?), and create the illusion for the consumer that health care is much cheaper than it really is – the cost is born by the collective, not by the individual.
The free market for health care is thus destroyed and, with that, these two facets of insurance abuse – again, promoted by decades of government meddling – drive the skyrocketing cost of health care, which we mysteriously see in no other sector of our economy.
This is why the Democrats are attempting to nationalize the health care insurance industry by (1) mandating that ALL American purchase ‘approved‘ health care insurance and (2) providing a “public option” against which that approval will be measured.
Naturally, the requirements for approval can change at the federal government’s whim, which will allow them to ultimately drive private insurance companies out of business. The outcome is a mathematical certainty: socialized medicine. Once that is imposed upon Americans, it provides the “justification” for ANY legislation that can be argued as “necessary” for the control of health care costs or reduction of general liability (see also: the bogus argument for mandated auto insurance, whose sole purpose is to guarantee a fine settlement for the plaintiff… and her attorney).
Unfortunately, what Anderson left out of his “quote” from Art. I, Sec. 8 is important: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
This section creates the power to lay and collect taxes “for the common Defence and general Welfare,” not to do order us to do or penalize us for not doing whatever Congress thinks will promote the general welfare. The “common defence and general welfare” clause is a LIMITATION on the power to tax, not a grant of power at all.
Jeff Perren:
One of us has reading difficulties. The title of the Barnett/Stewart article to which you link is entitled: “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional” Or try these concluding sentences:
“But Senators and Representatives need to know that, despite what they have been told, the health insurance mandate is highly vulnerable to challenge because it is, in truth, unconstitutional. And political considerations aside, each legislator owes a duty to uphold the Constitution.”
Speaking of racial discrimination, there are many provisions in the HC bill and the Education bill that provide extras to hospitals, schools, etc with large numbers of Hispanics and Blacks.
Wouldn’t that open this legislation to reverse discrimination lawsuits? Just asking…
To Marc Malone: And the alternative to not requiring hospitals to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay is….?
66. Msmensa: If you could buy across state lines….you wouldnt have this problem. Also alot of health insurance prices get jacked up by mandates that are put on the insurance itself…you might find that your insurance is mandated to cover things like acupuncture or viagra…which you might not ever have any use for but still have to pay for because the other guy might need it.
What we need is choice, but what Obama is giving us is….well lets just say I just cant wait to lose my good insurance so my wife and I can get our vaccinations at the welfare office. We’ll get a polio vaccine and get a free case of TB gratis!
“Is being forced to buy car insurance unconstitutional, for similar reasons? Why or why not? thanks-”
No. You only have to buy car insurance to protect those you might harm with your car, not yourself. And only, of course, if you HAVE a car. You can not legally force someone to purchase any insurance merely by the fact that they exist. You can require people purchase it to obtain a priviledge (driving).
Obama and his transformation of America to Socialism:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20912
Rights come from God and NOT the government! Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! From GOD! To hear the representatives speak of the rights the government is granting us thru this bill is enough to make me sick… and maybe even in need health care
Thanks Larrey for giving us options when/if the day comes that we need them! Pray to God (not congress)that day never comes! Pray for the Constitution to prevail!
The car insurance analogy is very weak since car insurance is liability protection for the damages caused by the driver against other cars and individuals. As a priviledge or condition of driving, you are required to demonstrate that you can pay for damages to others that you cause.
Nice, goy.
And let’s don’t forget Roe v. Wade. The first time a gov panel indicates to a doctor or insurer that one procedure is to be preferred over another, that is a clear violation of the plain meaning of Roe v. Wade.
I’d be happy to see the SCOTUS weigh in and and toss this mess. I’d be happy to see a new Republican majority in the next congress curb it and one in the congress after that repeal it. But I’m not holding my breath.
What will happen is that, given our right to contract, the well-to-do will emulate congress and get themselves private, for-pay medical arrangements. Congress can no more stop that than it can shut down private schools. We will end up with an ugly two-tier system–FedEx care for the rich and postal-service care for the rest of us.
States like Idaho and Texas will nullify implementation of the law, and physicians who don’t get in on the private plans in their state will move to those states. Opulent clinics will open up just on the other side of the Rio Grande for fly-in business. Corporations will start providing company clinics in order to attract employees.
Thanks to the Dems, we will have pretty much what we have now, just pushed to a nightmare extreme. The best way to stop it? All of us get together and pass an amendment that says congress is subject to any law it passes. If they were faced with using Obamacare rather than the gold-plated plan they voted themselves, they’d repeal it unanimously in a heartbeat.
If you folks who say you care for the Constitution really do care about it, how come you don’t seem to care very much at all about settling the Constitutional issue of what’s-his-name, you know who I mean, Barry Soetoro’s, eligibility to be the president of this country in the first place?
“RonC:
Jeff Perren:
One of us has reading difficulties. The title of the Barnett/Stewart article to which you link is entitled: “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional” Or try these concluding sentences:
“But Senators and Representatives need to know that, despite what they have been told, the health insurance mandate is highly vulnerable to challenge because it is, in truth, unconstitutional. And political considerations aside, each legislator owes a duty to uphold the Constitution.” RonC @69 Mar 20, 2010 – 2:20 pm
Yes, Ron, one of us does. I AGREE with Dr. Barnett’s position that the mandate is NOT constitutional, i.e. it is UNconstitutional, i.e. it VIOLATES the Constitution, i.e. it would be ILlegal. (That’s apart from the 53 other things about HR 3590 that are immoral, impractical, and illegal.)
Did you read my post as suggesting otherwise?
I hope this post makes my position clear. I am OPPOSED to the Federal government’s latest attempt to VIOLATE the rights of individual citizens – as I am to all the other attempts, successful or otherwise.
If you are in any doubt whatever about my views, I encourage you to spend 5 minutes reading my blog.
Respectfully,
Jeff Perren
There’s a headline, today, with the bamster again saying his health care is “do or die.” And, I wondered why? Why again? Well, what other way could you get the legacy media to tack away from the crowds in DC? They were only going to say 12,000 “or so” showed up. Nope. Can’t use that line. So they are going with the bamster, alone, again plugging his bill. Why is that? If the votes were there this thing would have passed by now.
We’re constantly being tricked. But it’s always the same trick. While, yes. IF by some chance this thing passes t’marra, what exactly is it? The senate bill? REALLY? Well, if not, then where’s the match to the bill that needs to be the same?
A quick service for a dead bill is the best way to get rid of the problem. I bet pelosi knows that.
@71. BC: – …the alternative to not requiring hospitals to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay is….?
Here’s a thought: spend some time actually READING the EMTALA statutes. Then get someone to explain the terms to you. Then go read them again. Because the alternative you’re looking for is called “the current reality”.
Hospitals ARE NOT REQUIRED to “treat” everyone regardless of their ability to pay. They are required to do one thing and one thing only: screen to determine if an “emergency medical condition” exists. Only if such a condition exists is critical (e.g., life-saving) care required. And THAT requirement only extends to the point of stabilizing the patient. Unless a critical need is identified, the hospital has no further statutory obligation. That’s not going to change no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
Let me add three additional bases for challenge:
First, this would amount to an improper delegation of authority by the legislature to the executive branch; i.e., all these multiple committees and bureaucracies that would have the power to make rules. To delegate anything administratively to an executive agency, the legislature must first create enabling statutes which actually define the law. The executive is allowed ONLY to promulgate rules that implement what congress has legislated. The idiots who wrote these bills included vast original authority in these czars, committees and agencies which is totally improper.
Second, there are at least 5 instances in which it specifically states in these bills that “there shall be no administrative or judicial review” of the acts and/or decisions of these executive branch bureaucrats. That is a denial of access to the judicial system, plus a denial of the right to seek review and redress when aggrieved.
Lastly, in the Senate version, there is a provision stating that it shall be out of order to introduce or vote on any repeal or amendment of that particular subsection. The Senate may, if it chooses, change the rules for amending or repealing one if its bills, but that is a “rule change” and in the Senate such a procedural rule change requires approval by 2/3 of the Senate. So, the passage of the Senate bill by 60 votes was totally improper, since it contained a procedural rule change. This question was puit directly to the Parliamentarian (a Democratic Senator) of the Senate for his ruling, and to the amazement of all, he ruled that this portion of the Senate bill was NOT a procedural element requiring a 2/3 vote. His ruling is subject to challenge as well.
From my blog:
A few notes on the health-care debate
When I listen to liberal arguments about health-care debate, I am always amazed at how illogical their arguments are. Here are a couple of examples…
Liberals want to force people to buy insurance, so that no one could get a free ride. This is their main explanation on why they intend to use the full power of the IRS against those that refuse to purchase the medical insurance. In real life, these is no need for government coercion to achieve this goal. The Federal Government can simply drop the requirement on the health care provides to serve everyone – whether we are talking about emergency rooms or hospitals. And bingo – this would cut medical costs, increase individual liberty and promote more responsibility. But as someone said long time ago – it’s no fun for liberals if people do something voluntarily – they always want to use the government coercion.
You often hear liberals whining about the general unfairness that congressmen get excellent medical insurance plans, while so many people in America have to do without any insurance coverage. Obamacare is supposed to change this. Of course, this liberal argument is not logical, since it is impossible to imagine that the State can provide medical care to 300 million Americans at the level that is achieved for a few hundred very rich politicians. But more importantly – the health care bill itself openly aims to destroy high-quality medical insurance plans for non-politicians by taxing what Obama called “Cadillac insurance plans”. How stupid do liberals think we are to believe their arguments? Very stupid, if you watch carefully what Obama pushes on all of us.
“BC:
To Marc Malone: And the alternative to not requiring hospitals to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay is….?
Mar 20, 2010 – 2:31 pm”
Allowing them the Constitutionally guaranteed liberty, as owners of their own lives and property, to decide for themselves who to treat and under what conditions.
I.e. not treating care providers as slaves simply because someone else is in need.
Insurance. Nobody is forced and the fines aren’t issued pursuant to not-having it, they’re levied against damages you incur as a result of an accident when you are lacking it.
Many Illegal Aliens in California drive without any insurance and illegal-alien advocates say it’s wrong to force them to acquire it since it’s expensive.
If you don’t drive your car off your own property you don’t have to buy car insurance.
If you leave it parked and neglected on your own land you don’t need it, or if you only drive around on your back-forty you don’t need it.
And if you don’t have a car and live a religiously Green, Eco-Sensitive, and Car-Free lifestyle you don’t have to have buy insurance. Stay pure and Green and car-free!
I think the answer to Obamacare will not come from the Constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence. King Obama and his minions have filled a power vacuum that an inattentive and complacent America created. Truly, I think that it’s too late to save the Republic as it is, and we will be starting over, one way or the other.
If you want to kill this bill, one can simply make it clear, that any republican president reserves the right to create a presidential order to the effect that no member of this congress, or any future one can be permitted receive any treatment for any condition that is denied to any ordinary Americans under what ever public or last resort plan created by this legislation.
Anyone with even a partial brain could probably argue in court that the trillions of additional dollars of additional deficit for these unfunded, unneeded, unconstitutional, and mostly unwanted entitlements to make more dependents and less contributors to the tax base do the exact opposite of “Provide for the General Welfare”. They are accelerating the bankrupting of our nation and filling the pockets of lots of liberal thieves.
It’s time folks; these bastards must be shut down…and I’m not real picky about how that happens.
Regarding the question as to whether states’ requirements for driver’s to procure automobile insurance is similar to the Obamacare health insurance mandate, it is not. Most states actually require drivers to “show financial responsibility” as a condition of utilizing the roads and highways built by the state and local governments.
Generally, this means the driver must be able to prove they can fund some prospective liability arising from the driving of a vehicle, usually in the neighborhood of two to three hundred thousand dollars. As most people do not have the ability to do this with their owned assets, they buy auto insurance, to meet this requirement.
So, first the requirement is not for insurance and second the requirement is a condition of driving a vehicle on government constructed roadways. This is quite different than the Obamacare mandate which compels all U.S. residents to buy a specific insurance product.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. MR. MARK TWAIN,
“Eman:
First of all, driving is not a right it is a privilege.”
“Cap’n Rusty:
… Being required to buy automobile insurance is not unconstitutional, because driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.”
“Rob:
Moreover, driving is not a right but a privilege. We drive at the pleasure of our state and local governments, and it is therefore within their purview to regulate our driving.”
Wow, what a bunch of question-begging. I’m floored: If all of you have bought into this concept that driving is merely a “privilege,” then you have no logical argument against your body’s existence being merely a “privilege,” which thus justifies mandates.
Driving is a “privilege” only because the right has been infringed.
You’re essentially saying, “Well, government has infringed Right X and instead deemed it a privilege, and that is why mandated insurance is OK.” There’s no reason that same argument can’t be employed to justify mandated health insurance: The government merely needs to declare your body’s existence a privilege, and now you have no rebuttal, because you have already argued that “privileges” may be accompanied by mandates.
There are good ways to explain why auto-insurance mandates and health-insurance mandates are not comparable, but merely asserting that “driving is not a right, it’s a privilege” is certainly not one of them.
Driving is not a privilege. The political elite has merely convinced many people that it is, and the State decided to give itself the power to hand it out.
The whole “driving is a privilege, not a right” is bull and I hate it. What else should the state decide is a privilege? Are we going to need a license to barbecue too? You can kill people with undercooked food too, you know. In fact, licensing is bull when you think about it long enough. Who are they to tell you you can drive or not?
If they don’t need a vote to pass the bill, then we don’t need a jury to convict them of treason…
I agree with your analysis of the proposed law but it would be easy enough to rewrite it to allow a tax credit equal to the old “fine” if you have acceptable health insurance. No insurance, no credit.
To goy: No (and see also this.)
I generally enjoy pajamas media articles, and am adamantly against Obamacare. That said, this article is so incomplete in its analysis of a constitutional basis for Obamacare that I am surprised that Instapundit linked to it.
Constitutional or not, they have forced us to contribute to our retirement account via FICA, and Medicare. The first time I received a statement, about 6 or 7 years ago, I was eligible for a little more than a hundred dollars per month when I reached 65. In the last couple of statements, I was eligible to zero dollars because I have not worked enough, i.e. 40 quarters, to be eligible for Social Security payments.
They took a % of my wages and I’ll get nothing back. Sounds no due process,…not even fines, but an outright confiscation. Were there Contitutional challenges when they instituted FICA and Medicare taxes?
“That ain’t no rules here… We make ‘em up as we go along.”
Why not this? A person can choose to buy health insurance or not. No mandates. But then enforce a rule that you do not get ANY health care unless you pay for it. Come to the ER with a broken leg and no insurance or money? Tough! No care. Why not enforce personal responsibility instead of putting a safety net under all the slackers? This country does too much supporting of slackers.
@95. Thomas Paine: – If they don’t need a vote to pass the bill, then we don’t need a jury to convict them of treason…
Sic Semper Tyrannis
.
@97. BC: – No (and see also this.)
You gutless twit, in your flailing ignorance and mindless laziness – trying to find a URL to make your argument because YOU CAN’T – you made my point.
YOUR OWN CITE states EXACTLY what I told you: “Participating hospitals must: (1) conduct medical-screening examinations, (2) provide necessary stabilizing treatment to any patient seeking emergency medical care in an emergency department, and (3) hospitals that are unable to do (1) and (2) may transfer the patient to a facility that can provide those services in a manner that accords with EMTALA guidelines [4].”
Case closed, commie.
Meanwhile, it’s ignorant, worthless, pathetic scum like YOU who perpetuate the myth that if you want “free” health care, you can just go to the ER.
I am so thankful that our forefathers, (even though they were rich, white racist, males) saw fit to make sure that 51% of the people could make the other greedy, selfish, money-grubbing 49% pay for my personal well-being. There would be no social justice if we couldn’t eat the rich (but not enough to kill them, just enough to keep feeding off them.) What kind of government is it that cannot take care of me? Obama takes care of me. He loves me. I love him. Like a big brother.
102. Dr. Lumplevin,
It takes a village, Lumpy.
We’re all stars now, in the doh show.
We must regress back to our tribal natures again. Look how great the ‘progressives’ have done in the blue states.
Submit. Submit. Submit.
@104. Delia: – Submit. Submit. Submit.
There’s that creepy connection between Socialism and Islam coming briefly into focus again…
INSURANCE IS A TOOL FOR MITIGATING FINANCIAL RISK. It should NOT be used to pay for every dollar of routine health care we consume. And routine health care – health care which entails no risk whatever, as it is an ongoing necessity of life just like food, clothing, utilities, living quarters, transportation and an iPod® – is the vast majority of health care consumed.
Well said. Among all this discussion of health insurance vs. car insurance, I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about the above point, because the truth of the matter is, health Insurance should be more like car insurance–i.e. you pay for flu shots or scraped elbows out of pocket and use insurance to pay for things like setting broken legs or brain surgery. Imagine how much car batteries and tires would cost if we had to make insurance claims every time we bought them…
goy has provided the most accurate explanation for skyrocketing healthcare costs. See #67 above and an extract below.
I will argue that the example of automobile insurance SHOULD be used to make an argument against nationalized healthcare. The automobile insurance rates have certainly risen over time, but to a very large degree, they have not spiraled completely out of control as health care costs have.
Consider this:
What if the liberals decided that the poor, elderly and any other deprived or needy group of voters were entitled to have the federal government (read taxpayer) pay for their automobile insurance? IS THERE ANY DOUBT about the effect a mandated federal program of this sort would ultimately have on the auto insurance industry and their insured who continued to pay monthly premiums?
The solution is to reconnect the patient with the doctor and medical facility for both healthcare and financial accountability in a free market. States should incentivize paying for routine health care and the use of major medical insurance policies to cover the big stuff. Get the federal government completely out of regulating and subsidising healthcare. States could also incentivize charitable healthcare organizations, facilities and providers to help fill the gap for those that need more affordable options. Walmart has certainly demonstrated how the free market can provide prescription drugs at extremely afforable prices. Take your choice; a US DOD $200 hammer (bottle of aspirin), or a Walmart $4.00 prescription.
Dave
Extract from goy, #67 above:
INSURANCE IS A TOOL FOR MITIGATING FINANCIAL RISK. It should NOT be used to pay for every dollar of routine health care we consume. And routine health care – health care which entails no risk whatever, as it is an ongoing necessity of life just like food, clothing, utilities, living quarters, transportation and an iPod® – is the vast majority of health care consumed.
By paying for a commodity using an insurance policy – as promoted by decades of government meddling in the health care market – we have destroyed the economic relationship between the provider and consumer. That relationship is what keeps prices for all OTHER commodities – those we don’t pay for through the abuse of insurance – relatively affordable.
Not only that, but we have effectively collectivized payment for that commodity through the abuse of group insurance policies. These “Spread The Cost Around” (sound familiar?), and create the illusion for the consumer that health care is much cheaper than it really is – the cost is born by the collective, not by the individual.
The free market for health care is thus destroyed and, with that, these two facets of insurance abuse – again, promoted by decades of government meddling – drive the skyrocketing cost of health care, which we mysteriously see in no other sector of our economy.
INSURANCE IS A TOOL FOR MITIGATING FINANCIAL RISK. It should NOT be used to pay for every dollar of routine health care we consume. And routine health care – health care which entails no risk whatever, as it is an ongoing necessity of life just like food, clothing, utilities, living quarters, transportation and an iPod® – is the vast majority of health care consumed.
By paying for a commodity using an insurance policy – as promoted by decades of government meddling in the health care market – we have destroyed the economic relationship between the provider and consumer. That relationship is what keeps prices for all OTHER commodities – those we don’t pay for through the abuse of insurance – relatively affordable.
Not only that, but we have effectively collectivized payment for that commodity through the abuse of group insurance policies. These “Spread The Cost Around” (sound familiar?), and create the illusion for the consumer that health care is much cheaper than it really is – the cost is born by the collective, not by the individual.
The free market for health care is thus destroyed and, with that, these two facets of insurance abuse – again, promoted by decades of government meddling – drive the skyrocketing cost of health care, which we mysteriously see in no other sector of our economy.
To Ken W: you don’t have to drive a car.
105. goy,
Small cuts first, big whacks later.
Kind of poetic really…
Why take my head
just cut my hand
Why cut my head
just take my hand
This land is my land
Your head in my hand
You worked to feed
A stranger’s child
You worked to feather
A politician’s bed
How does that sit inside your head?
And for this dread
There is no med.
The Constitution does NOT say provide for the general welfare. The Constitution says to “promote” the general welfare.
For Car Insurance, you are not required to buy collision insurance – only liability.
Does anyone find it ironic how the President, which the Main Stream Media have said was a constitutional law professor(not true), could have no interest in the constitutional details of this proposed legislation? It is astounding at the lack of serious inquiry our Main Stream Media does not even take any slightest amount of curiosity about this fact.
I think Joe Biden’s joke about being Barack Obama’s base (correspondents dinner) and Barack Obama being at Joe Biden’s base (Irish American) dinner was a rare moment of Joe being funny and revealing at the same time.
Is so obvious where left wing moonbat # 7 Alice Wigglebotton: who writes
“Unconstitutional” is neo-con code for “black.” You are a racist bigot.”
Speaks from just replace the last letter ‘n’ of her nick with an ‘m’ and all will be clear.
MUST I own a CAR no I think not however if I do MUST I have insurance well yes of course I must for my and other road users compensation should I hit them. MUST I have Health Insurance NO not at all and I must realise that NOT having it MAY put a financial burden on myself and my family. But MUST I have it simply because I am alive and breathing no of course not and is GROSS STUPIDITY to argue that I must which is what Obama and the DEMS are doing.
goy (101)
“Sic Semper Tyrannis”
Doesn’t that only apply where people are serious about governing themselves? The American people have their collective butts in a sling because they’ve granted the democrat party complete control. Expecting the court to undo what the people did to themselves seems like more of the same “someone will save us from reality” attitude that helped Barry win. I’m actually surprised at the number of people I talk to who seem to be honestly shocked that ‘their’ democrat party would do this.
We’ll see whether or not people are serious when Obama paraphrases Jackson and says, “John Roberts has made his decision: now let him enforce it!”. Unless an awful lot of people who voted for this guy and his democrat Congress are still outraged by the time the Court rules, I don’t think it’ll make much difference. After all, once you start ignoring the Constitution, why back off just because the Court doesn’t agree with you? If people are still outraged and democrats can’t saddle us mandatory insurance purchase, they’ll just start working to bankrupt the insurance industry and then take it over to “save” another industry from collapsing. Looking at what such a collapse would entail, the same folks who voted this SOB into office might be frightened into rushing right out and voting for another “savoir” rather than constantly watching their representatives and staying actively involved.
It seems to me that States winning a fight against this on 10th Amendment grounds is the only thing that will stop it for very long. In order to roll back the decades of damage that’s gotten us to this point, the focus should probably stay on the 10th Amendment and definitely stay on the fact that the democrat party wants to institute socialist feudalism even if they have to ignore the Constitution to do so. Otherwise, how long will it be before we’re hoping the Court will save us from majority apathy and gullibility once again?
Regards
I called a Rep’s office and the lady on the line gave me Ken’s lame “car insurance” argument. It took me ten seconds to obliterate it.
I told her, “Some of us still value liberty over security. I know that seems a quaint concept to collectivists…but there you go.”
She didn’t like me too well, for some reason.
I understand that all of these things ARE unconstitutional.
Roger:
What I would like to know is:
What is the actual mechanism for suing Obama, Pelosi and Reid, et al, for their unconstitutional actions?
Do you know who; or what judicial or legislative action, can force them to make reparations for the torts(damages)to the American people, that are a direct result of their unconstitutional actions?
““Unconstitutional” is neo-con code for “black.” You are a racist bigot.”
Seriously? People are that stupid? I’ve been called a racist for voting McCain – since when is that an issue of race? The uninformed, underinformed and misinformed masses are to blame for where we are now.
Read on the issues look through the games these pirates are playing. That goes for both sides of the political battle.
I’m a simple guy and was part of that crowd for a long time. No more. Sick and tired of going with the flow. Get informed and get involved people. Getting informed means digging and not taking a single source of news as fact.
@115. rashputin: – … once you start ignoring the Constitution, why back off just because the Court doesn’t agree with you?
We could ask FDR if he were alive, I suppose. In precisely this context – unconstitutional overreach of the collectivist agenda – he had his ass handed to him. Twice. Once with the repeal of much of his ill-conceived, socially suicidal “New Deal” and again later when he tried – and failed – to pack the court with justices sympathetic to his fascistic ideology.
Yeah, that’s all been air-brushed from the history textbooks… going at least as far back as when I learned U.S. History in high school (late ’60s). Socialism has indeed had a very LONNNNG march through our institutions.
I am against the socialist health care bill,however everyone who is a Democrat in Congress must vote for Obamacre or be called racist by the very racist Demo party.
Liberals have long hung their hats on the “general welfare” clause. To hear them tell it, there’s almost nothing Congress is not empowered to do in the name of general welfare. Should they pass this horror today, and I believe they will, let the games begin (and I’m guessing the Conservatives on the Court are just itching to get their hands on this issue). We may lose this battle, a big one to be sure, but it’s a long war and we will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.
goy @120
“Yeah, that’s all been air-brushed from the history textbooks… going at least as far back as when I learned U.S. History in high school (late ’60s). Socialism has indeed had a very LONNNNG march through our institutions.”
I’m aware of what FDR tried, I’m just not sure of two things:
1) The current Justices are of equal moral fiber and
2) while (as I understand it) the a large percentage of the voting public and a significant portion of his own party were very critical of FDR attempting such things, would Barry encounter the same amount of resistance within his own party or from the public, especially if he were to ignore the ruling of the Court rather than trying to tamper with the Court? When FDR was showing off his uppity socialist feathers, there were respected newspapers and radio stations not in the socialist camp. Now, with all the MSM dying but singing the praises of Barry as they drown, what percentage of the population will just absorb they’re fed and stay on the sidelines the same way as they soaked up the hoopla that got this guy elected in the first place?
I’m also wondering how the percentage of those who are apathetic or only sporadically involved these days compares with the same groups back then. I’m also wondering why so many people I talk with seem to be very upset but totally fatalistic. Even at this point there are an awful lot of people I run into who don’t seem to think we’re actually at the edge of the cliff or that big changes in November may be too late to change anything without years of hard work. As a rhyming reverend might say, “If we are to avoid Constitutional castration, we must embrace massive active participation”.
@123. rashputin: – … I’m just not sure of two things:
Hey, you asked “once you start ignoring the Constitution, why back off just because the Court doesn’t agree with you?” FDR was forced to do so. By the court. History repeats itself – just never exactly the same way twice.
- I’m also wondering why so many people I talk with seem to be very upset but totally fatalistic.
Well, some of them probably feel like me. We’ve been telling anyone who’d listen for twenty years or more that the swinging political pendulum in D.C. is puppet theater intended to distract from the ongoing destruction of every institution in this Republic. We’ve been labeled “cranks”, “survivalists”, “conspiracy theorists”, “nazis”, “racists”, “militia”, “gun nuts” and numerous other epithets… all while we watched every fact go completely ignored, every warning go unheeded and every prediction come true. People, apparently, want to be ruled. That’s not fatalistic, that’s simple observation.
We’ve been labeled,“cranks”, “survivalists”, “conspiracy theorists”, “nazis”, “racists”, “militia”, “gun nuts”
Well, at least I’m not alone in regard. You’re right, there must be some deep seated urge in most people what makes them want to walk behind their massa and not worry about anything other than kissing his patoot correctly.
Regards
The Constitution is our way of life.If you don’t like it get out out NOW !!
125 oops
what/that
Say, now that we’re all registered, folded, spindled, and frequently mutliated, shouldn’t we have a reasonable editor to use when posting comments or at the least, the option to preview prior to posting?
Regards
Thank you Mr. Anderson for giving us hope.
forcing one to do anything that is not detrimental to another is insane and catastrophic-if i choose to take a chance on anything in life-i do just that-my choice and liberty to do so is intact.i work hard to have my private insurance-if some in society cannot afford it (within good cause)we as a society will take care of own-doctors did not become doctors just to be in a profession to make money.(of course that is a plus)physicians take an oath to help those in need no matter what-cutting off their livelyhood will take them out of the door to other avenues.get off insurance companies backs-help them adjust rates-not demonize them.
If the courts won’t uphold the Constitution, I think a split of this Republic into two or more nations will occur.
Civil War You Say ??
“IN LOVING MEMORY OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ONE NATION UNDER GOD I WANT MY AMERICA BACK” (c)2009
If obama can not give proof of his place of birth “IMPEACH” NOW
Well, the GOP is busy stirring up their fascist goon-squad with this notion of repealing HCR. I dare them to try. They’ll have about as much luck as they did repealing Social Security and Medicare. The movers and shakers in the GOP know this. But certainly you can’t blame the GOP leadership for trying to get a little mileage with the repeal meme. Their useful idiots will eat it right up.
I have an idea for the first commercial Democrats should run against the GOP should they even try. A mom and a little girl (say, 5 or 6) are having a heart to heart. The little girl has a serious type of cancer. Because of new HCR laws the private insurance company could not rescind the little girls coverage. She is now getting the needed treatments. However, the mom has to let the cancer-stricken girl know that there is a possibility her treatment may stop because the GOP wants to return to the bad days when private insurance company death panels could refuse treatments that cost to much and denied their CEOs more spa vacations and private jet transportation. The mom has to tell the scared little girl that she may die. The next scene depicts a coffin being lowered into the ground. The camera pans to a close-up of the mothers face who then tearfully thanks Republicans for murdering her daughter.
It’ll work like a charm, guaranteed.
@133. Praetorian: – A mom and a little girl (say, 5 or 6) are having a heart to heart. The little girl has a serious type of cancer.
How about a little jig while you’re at it.
One can’t blame the left for relying consistently on Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. Like the scorpion – it’s just their nature.
#133 Praetorian:
“Well, the GOP is busy stirring up their fascist goon-squad with this notion of repealing HCR. I dare them to try.”
They won’t need to. This dog will never, EVER hunt.
It is going to be found unConstitutional on so many grounds that it will make your head spin.
Consider only one aspect of it…that the Federal Government, the creation and servant of the People in a democracy, has now arrogated to itself the Power to Mandate that the cindividual citizen must purchase a service,(or promise of a service, since these will be the exact same insurance companies that we already know), with his own wealth, and under threat of legal sanction for non-compliance.
Bzzzzzt! WRONG! There are, again, so many arguments to be succesfully made against this hideous attempt at tyranny that it’s like a buffet…but let me use only one, a Right that a citizen enjoys that is nowhere written in the Constitution:
The Right to Privacy…you know,as found in Roe v. Wade…that government has no business coming between a patient and her doctor.
(You have no idea how much I’m going to savor the next few months, beating swollen moonbat skulls into bloody pulps with Roe v. Wade.)
And should you STILL think that you’re the Muhammad Ali of social legislation, let me remind you of the fate of the last two Great Big Crises that were “solved” by moonbat legislation:
“Gun Control” via the Assault Weapons Ban…sunset quietly in 2005 with nary a peep, and 2007 saw Heller v. DC, which overturned almost all of liberal gun control schemes.
AND:
“Campaign Finance Reform” via the odious McCain-Feingold Act…with very little fanfare, major parts of this dog’s breakfast were found unconstitutional and nullified withi the last year.
So…how’s it feel to know that you’re pulling for the side that favors unConstitutional and unAmerican laws?
Now here’s a quick reaction
DeMint to Introduce Bill to Repeal ObamaCare
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=83c30740-e517-93b0-a484-448d7e81dbe6
My kinda guy and a good man.
The entire federal government–each branch–has been so irretrievably corrupted over the years that the constitution has become essentially irrelevant. TO nearly all of our overseers in D.C. the Constitution is but a mildly amusing relic, a pesky inconvenience to be circumvented when it suits their parochial political purposes. Though the Constitution obviously nullifies the centerpiece of Obamacare, that being “individual mandates”, it’s really quite irrelevant in this lawless era. The sad truth is that only determined/aggressive nullification efforts and widespread civil disobedience can restore the Republic. And if all esle fails, the founders clearly warned that it was not only the right, but, indeed, the duty, of “we the people” to restore constitutional order. There is no question but that a growing number of angry and justifiably angry Americans are ready for that battle.
Useful info. Fortunate me I discovered your site unintentionally, and I am stunned why this twist of fate did not happened in advance! I bookmarked it.