There's probably more, but the most glaring is this:
The Federal Government has some power to regulate interstate commerce. But it does not have the power to force you, the citizen, to buy anything just to remain in good legal standing as a citizen. What a horrible precedent this would set! What else can the government force you to buy? And from whom can they force you to buy it is the next logical question -- as it can set up regulations to regulate companies it doesn't like out of compliance with whatever mandate.
But back to the issue.
Obama campaigned on no tax increase for anyone making less than $250,000 a year. He also campaigned on no individual mandate to buy health care.
To make sure it wasn't a tax increase, what they passed is an individual mandate. Which as I mentioned above, is unconstitutional because the Federal Government has no power to compel anyone to buy anything just to stay out of jail, essentially.
So the lawsuit is based largely on the fact that it is a individual mandate.
So now the Administration is saying it is a tax. Whoops.
Now there may be other unconstitutional things in it, I haven't gone through it page by page like some have. But if it's a tax, then Obama's guilty of a bait and switch. Actually, either way it's a bait and switch because he campaigned on no tax increase and no individual mandate.
And either way, it's a weasel on his part. When someone won't let you pin them down on what it actually is, they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It's not this, it's that. No, it's not really THAT, it's this.
It's not a crap sandwich, it's a pre-digested protein sandwich, and it even contains some vitamins, minerals, and fiber! Well, you know, what does it really matter because in the end it comes out as crap anyway? Let's not argue over ideolgical ideas of what food is, shall we? What's important is that America not go hungry. Why do you want to deny sandwiches to poor people?!!!!Anyway, if you have more arguments other than the individual mandate as to why it's unconstitutional, feel free to comment away. This was just a quick one.
3 comments:
This doesn't address the letter of the constitution, but it addresses the spirit. If I want my tonsils removed, and the doctor agrees to accept six chickens and a front hub from an '87 Ford pickup as payment, that's between me and the doctor. I should be able to pay the doctor directly without involving an insurance company, much less the federal government.
How Odumbo could campaign on 'no individual mandate' is beyond me. Why not campaign on no mandatory high colonics as well?
He campaigned on the "no individual mandate" during the primary to separate himself from Hillary. He will say ANYTHING he needs to say, truth or lie, to put himself in a position to advance his agenda. So we have to keep our eyes on his agenda, sadly, not what he says. Because it's all weasel words.
I was talking to our fearless leader (of our 9/12 group ... that's what I jokingly called him and he's adopted it as his monicre) about articulating the Constitutional, and came up with this piece of nuggautty "wisdom".
One thing that makes it a bit more difficult to do with the Constitution is that the Constitution is basically a framework designed to restrain government power. There are enumerated powers, and a bill of rights it cannot revoke -- and everything else is left to the individual states. It has been walked on so much in the past 80 or so years that people don't see it anymore. Most of the people teaching it (when there are people teaching it) have a progressive worldview and teach it from a rationalist angle, rationalizing what they would like it to mean and it is lost on most people. But focus on enumerated powers and the bill of rights, and you can do pretty well, I think.
This thing is wrong in so many ways. In addition to what's been said already... 1. Now that the bill has passed we can take a look at what is in it. 2. It HAD to be passed immediately (in August of 2009)with the famed "end of life counceling panels" included.
I tried without success to ask Senator Clare Mc Kaskil last fall, after the bill failed to be passed, if she knew that the "end of life counceling" clause was in it. That would have been a great sound bite. What could she have answered?
Mc Kaskil: Yes. I did.
Me: Then why in heaven's name did you vote for such an affront to decency and liberty?
OR
Mc Kaskil: No. I did not.
Me: Then why the hell did you try to ram this bill through without reading it?
I still intend to ask the question if ever I get the chance.
As to combatting it now, mandate or tax it is outside of the Constitution's enumeration of powers. We agree on this, but this congress and president care nothing for the content or meaning of our founding documents. (I have little faith in our courts to mediate these lawsuits as well.) They have no regard for free and fair elections either.
The most important thing we have to do now is to force the issue of election law reform to ensure the fairness our democratic process is preserved. Voters MUST show a valid form of ID to be allowed to vote. No ID no vote, sorry. Only scammers would protest this requirement. Just as terrorist bemoan extra security at the airport.
I would say the degree to which they scream about reforming the election process would be the degree to which they fear a fair election. We all know what that means. They are cheating.
Their reaction to the Arizona immigration law gives us a little view of this concept. The Dems see this as a threat to one arm of their voter fraud scam.
Post a Comment