Aug 13, 2011 Political
When will the politicians in DC learn about the Constitution? The individual mandate of Obamacare has been shot down by several courts as unconstitutional but the regime is pressing on with implementation. It argues that some courts have found it Constitutional and that it will press on. All sides know this will make it to the Supreme Court. The regime wants that process to take as long as possible so it can claim that trillions of dollars have already been spent so why go back?
The law should have been stopped when it was ruled unconstitutional. There are disagreements among the courts so the law should be on hold until the SCOTUS reviews it and rules. The regime cannot have this because stopping now would take away its plan to have it implemented before a ruling takes place.
The government simply cannot force people to buy a product. The argument that people without insurance cost all of us because we pick up the tab for their health care is not a reason to force us to buy insurance. While it is true that we do end up paying it is because people decide not to pay their bills. People do not need insurance to get health care. They can go to the doctor and pay out of pocket. If they paid their bills we would not have an issue. But government has enslaved so many people and told them they have a right to something for nothing that we now have people who do not pay and who expect to get what they want for free.
Would it make sense for the government to require us all to buy and eat healthy food because those who do not make the rest of us pick up the tab for their unhealthy ways? If government can force healthy choices, then why does the government continue to allow the sale of tobacco? It impacts health care and the rest of us pay for the costs (even if we have insurance). Maybe it is because Obama needs his smokes…
The White House claims that the latest ruling from an appeals court will not stand because failure to have insurance impacts us all and therefore is authorized under the Commerce Clause.
The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab. White House
Notice how it is an individual responsibility provision instead of a mandate? The pinheads in DC should know that you cannot legislate responsibility. If someone forces you to do something that is not the definition of taking responsibility.
The bigger issue is that we end up picking up the tab regardless. If people without insurance get health care services and don’t pay then the cost is passed on to us. Under the government plan the government pays for people who can’t afford health insurance. While Democrats have a hard time understanding this, when government pays for something it is really the taxpayer who ends up paying for it. Therefore, we end up picking up the tab either way.
The Supreme Court will end up ruling on this and will decide that the individual mandate (not the nicely named responsibility provision) is unconstitutional. I expect the liberals on the court will decide that it is OK to force people to buy a product but their anti Constitutional views will go down in flames by those on the Court that follow the Constitution.
If they can force us to buy health insurance what will stop them from forcing us to buy a Chevy Volt. It is our responsibility to buy green energy using cars and everyone, at one time or another, will end up in a vehicle. Plus the taxpayer owns part of GM so it is our duty to buy from them to get our money back.
How would a liberal who believes it is OK to force people to purchase a product feel if a bill were introduced that required all Americans to buy a gun? Crime impacts everyone and when a person engages in crime it affects commerce. The cost of criminal activity is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and more police officers so, since it affects everyone and it affects commerce, we all need to buy a gun.
The liberals, including those judges who have ruled in favor of Obamacare (and those on the SCOTUS who will) would go nuts and declare that the government cannot force people to buy a product.
The big difference is there is a Constitutional provision that allows all citizens to own and carry a firearm without permission of government (though government routinely violates that provision – see Maryland) and there is no provision to provide health care to everyone. I do not think that government can force people to buy guns any more than it can force them to buy health care but if the SCOTUS decides that government can force us to buy a product then it can force us to buy guns and the Constitution says we can carry them. You know how liberals would act, now don’t you?
This is going to be interesting.
The liberals are going to push us until they get push back they do not like.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 4, 2011 Political
The Republicans are set to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and its takeover of health care in this country. The measure will pass in the House but will not pass in the Senate but Republicans there plan on a roll call vote to get everyone on the record. Considering how voting for Obamacare ended the careers of many long time Democrats, some have to be worried about the vote (which might explain why so many Democrats and their allies in the media are saying how bad taking up repeal would be).
One of the things in the law that people oppose is the individual mandate which requires everyone to buy health care insurance. The Democrats have twisted and abused the Commerce Clause in order to force people to buy a product. This is unconstitutional and against what the Commerce Clause was intended for. I think the law will die in the courts as this mandate is ruled unconstitutional.
Without the money from those required to buy health care, the entire law unravels.
Democrats are lining up to tell us, once again, that it is perfectly legal for the government to force someone to buy something. I wonder though, how they would react if a future Congress and president enacted a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun.
I might have written about this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. Everyone is impacted by crime and people can be the targets of crime at anytime. Additionally, crime impacts commerce in this country as it costs us billions of dollars each year. The Constitution absolutely affirms our individual right to keep and bear arms. What would happen if a future Congress said that people were required to buy a handgun because deterring crime impacts commerce?
Can you imagine how the very Democrats who say it is perfectly legal to require people to buy health care insurance would react?
I know that many of them would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional and that the government does not have the right to force people to buy things, particularly a gun.
The government does not have the power to force anyone to buy anything.
And Democrats would soon realize that if people were required to buy handguns.
**This issue involves the federal government. At least one local jurisdiction has enacted a law requiring a gun to be kept in every house. Also, when we were founded all males between certain ages were required to have a firearm and ammunition in case the need to call the militia to service arose.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 22, 2010 Political
The NYT has an editorial about Elena Kagan and the Republicans who oppose her. The thrust of the piece is that they do not understand the Constitution and they are angered that she would not answer the way they wanted with regard to the Commerce Clause. The NYT is convinced that the federal government can do anything it wants under the guise of the Commerce Clause and that it is settled law because of SCOTUS rulings.
So the Republicans, according to the NYT, are supposed to bow down and vote for a person who has a history of ignoring the Constitution and who believes in Socialism just like her buddy Obama.
The problem is, that while the NYT is busy saying that it is OK to do anything under the Commerce Clause including forcing people to buy health insurance, the writer demonstrates that he does not understand the Constitution. The writer’s words show a definite misunderstanding.
The clause was the legal basis for any number of statutes of enormous benefit to society. It is why we have the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act, setting a minimum wage and limiting child labor. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation in the workplace and in public accommodations. In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related. NYT
I will not comment on the enumerated acts because I do not know how Commerce fits in and it is not important to the debate. What is important is the sentence; “In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related.” [emphasis added]
The SCOTUS has ruled Congress can regulate ACTIVITIES. NOT buying health insurance is NOT an activity. The health care law punishes people for INACTIVITY.
The SCOTUS has never ruled that Congress can regulate INACTIVITY under the Commerce Clause (or any other as far as I know). All of the cited items are reported to be results of the imposition of the Commerce Clause and are stipulated as activities.
Even if one buys the argument that the Commerce Clause is unencumbered and allows politicians to regulate any activity whatsoever, no one can make the case that it allows Congress to regulate INACTIVITY. Never in our history has Congress been able to force people to purchase a product.
What will be next? Will we be required to buy a GM in order to help out that car company and its union employees?
The writer is obviously a “Journolist” Socialist who loves the liberal/progressive agenda and that is all well and good. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.
But let us not take this editorial as some authority on the Constitution.
The writer went after Republicans for their supposed lack of understanding of the Constitution but the writer demonstrates limited knowledge as well.
Not to mention the NYT seems to ignore the Democrats and their leader and the way they trample the Constitution on a daily basis.
Never surrender, never submit.