A post by Maynard
Yes, this exchange with Nancy Pelosi actually happened.
I feel like a broken record, but it’s a vital point. The Constitution is a specific enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. Our modern leadership instead proceeds on the tyrannical assumption that they can do whatever they want.
The linked editorial touches on the legal argument with respect to the mandated purchase of insurance. I can’t fully comprehend the the gory details (I’m not a lawyer), but you see the unprecedented nature of the intrusion. Under what other circumstances do you become a criminal just for existing and failing to purchase a mandated item? By way of example, you’re compelled (by your state) to buy car insurance…but you made the choice to buy a car. Obviously you’re compelled to pay taxes…but then, this isn’t a tax; Obama promised not to tax you, so it can’t be a tax.
I cannot see how the same Court that struck down the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2000 on Commerce Clause grounds would accept the limitless federal power represented in the individual mandate…
…[The] mandate [to purchase insurance] is absolutely without precedent in our nation. This point has been clearly made by the well-respected and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service.
And for the reasons I explain elsewhere, this mandate is grossly unconstitutional.
The key here that no one refutes is this: When the Court struck down VAWA in the case U.S. v. Morrison, at least there was an action (a violent act against a woman). And in every case where the Court has upheld a law under the Commerce Clause, it has involved an economic action, even in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn that set the outermost limit of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
Here, there is no action. The federal government would penalize — and perhaps prosecute — people who are doing nothing at all. Regulating an action is different from coercing an action. If the justices would not allow violent acts against women to be a federal issue, they are not likely to allow people sitting peacefully in their homes to be subject to federal power. It would be a radical expansion of federal law into people’s lives.
My main objection to health control is fear of the life-and-death power that government will ultimately hold over individual citizens, as well as looming national bankruptcy. Our Constitution was designed to protect us from such government overreach and centralization of power.
Maynard, spot on as usual. Isn’t it so weird that so many of us see what it is these people are foisting upon us – yet, those in power are doing it anyway? They know it too…otherwise, there wouldn’t be so much hesitation from those on the fence because they know their political lives depend on how they act on this issue. There is no other choice, but to take back these two houses in 2010 and begin to dismantle and repair all the damage done.
Interestingly, Harry Reid also claimed in an interview that taxes to pay for this crap, are voluntary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg. Funny how he keeps telling the interviewer to look at other country’s taxes. He is such a dumb ass. Dudes – you really have to watch this interveiw (about 4mins) it will make your head explode.
Hmmmm…so, what ARE these people who have “rule” over us workers, reading or not reading? Quite obvoiusly, not the founding documents. Seriously, from my perspective, prior to being put up for an elected role, EVERY candidate should be REQUIRED to take a written examination on the founding documents and get a 98% or higher (a birth certificate and high school diploma would be nice as well – I’m just sayin’). They are clueless boobs!!
I wonder where they’ll find the prison space for everybody who can’t or won’t buy health insurance? Release lesser criminals such as armed robbers, rapists, and other “misunderstood” scum ? Or maybe build more prisons – hey maybe that’s how this bill is supposed to stimulate the economy!
Here’s the press release by the Republican Traitor who voted yea on Death Care.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/louisiana-republican-congressman-cao-releases-statement-after-voting-in-favor-of-democratic-health-care-reform-bill_100271697.html
What a joke. What a coward. Oh…but you see, he received a written promise from the once for something for his state. Does EVERYBODY have their price? I cannot believe that.
Being able to keep your kids on your insurance until they are 27 is also outrageous. I wonder if the insurance companies will be required to have maternity coverage for peoples kids if that is the case. They used the commerce clause in the 30’s under FDR to punish a man for growing wheat on his own property for his own personal consumption. It is just a matter of time until they try to implement FDR’s second bill of rights.
FDR in 1944:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
Thank you, Bolshevik Bitch. You just sentenced my 13 year old nephew to an early death when health care starts being rationed and he can’t get insulin for his diabetes. You committed murder as well as treason. May you burn in hell forever.
Wiping the sleepy from my eyes this morning, I felt as if I had stepped into the Twilight Zone. I followed Maynard’s link “this exchange with Nancy Pelosi actually happened” to the Fox News article “An Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs” by Ken Klukowski. There I followed another link to what I thought was Klukowski’s article on Politico “Individual mandate insurance is unconstitutional”. Instead, this article popped up “Health care reform is constitutional” by Erwin Chemerinsky. Not being fully awake, I read the whole Chemerinsky article believing it was Klukowski’s article but thinking, “WTH” through the whole thing! I downed my coffee. Rubbed my eyes and closed the Chemerinsky’s article and reread Klukowski’s Open Letter. I clicked on Klukowski’s link again and that time I did get to his article on Politico “Individual mandate insurance is unconstitutional” which makes complete and total sense!
Internet glitch? Hackers? Me at the keyboard before coffee? Or did I enter the Twilight Zone?
I’m truly frightened for my country and my freedom. I say that just because…I don’t know what else to say anymore. The Left, if this passes the Senate which I understand will be much harder, will finally get the control over our lives that they’ve been craving for decades. These are the same people who condemn the Christian Right for wanting to legislate morality and they’re doing the exact same thing.
I cried at my computer when I heard this passed the House.
I just finished listening to Wednesday’s podcast where the Chia Obama was discussed. I think the ad should have said “It’s only nineteen dollars and some Change.”
Since we have gotten so much crap with this President, they must still be Hoping that we want even more crap for Christmas.
Bypassing Our Constitution, For Some Future Globalist Marxist President?
The Obama Birth Certificate thing: Is it a “stonewall enabling,” a Constitution nullifying precedent, maybe not for Obama, but for future non Americans in our Presidency?
I could not see why he would spend more than a million bucks to keep it sealed, unless he is ineligible for the Presidency, due to birth.
Then it clicked with me that MAYBE this is not about his personal technical eligibility. What if Obama pursues change such that foreigners could in time serve as our President? Could it be that the Constitutional requirement is being trampled over, with a refusal to provide proof of being a natural born citizen to the populace of this country, as a matter of “principle?”
This didn’t occur to me for a long time since I revere the Constitution. I tend to think from the viewpoint of patriotism to America, thinking as an “ordinary populace American.” How he identifies, and so thinks, may be different, being a natural born citizen technically, but with the psyche of a “foreigner”, political class Aristocrat elitist, Marxist Globalist, or other?
The possibility still exists that he is either not a natural born citizen, or just is so arrogant, he feels it is beneath him to present his credentials to the people.