But to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it's an illegitimate question. "Are you serious?!" she shot back at a CNSNews.com correspondent Matt Cover. Pelosi is not alone. Her friends in the liberal media also find the question ludicrous.
So Media Research Center video producer Bob Parks worked up a brief video that showcased how many in the liberal media see no constitutional problem with federal mandatory health care insurance.You can watch the video in the embed at right.
Coming soon: A brand-new NewsBusters design. But we need your help!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of Course It's Not Constitutional!
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:31 ET by DaMamaHealth care is a mess in this country. But a mandatory government program where people MUST buy insurance is not constitutional. For the government to force people to buy anything is unethical and wrong.
I know something needs to be done, and having a goverment run program for those who don't have insurance is a good idea. Only 15% of all Americans do not have insurance. They are the ones with the need, so deal with them. The rest of us who do have insurance, leave us alone.
Having the government force anyone to buy anything is wrong on every level.
Easy one: We are all slaves.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:53 ET by MaximusBraveheartSlaves don't have rights so they can r*** us as they see fit. We have no rights and need to sit down and shut up. I think Obama pretty much has a quote saying we need to sit down and shut up. Does that seem right that the President would say that to Citizens? M-B
It seems...
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 17:33 ET by unkeeafIt seems totally legitimate in the eyes of media. They seem to have no problem with the condescending tone that typically come out of this administration.
---------------------------------------
If You're Sick Of Big Mouth Liberals, You Will Love This!
http://bit.ly/9ZYfDa
We hear about the MOB all
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:16 ET by ThisnThatWe hear about the MOB all the time, and how you have to buy "insurance" from them to keep them from beating you up or destroying your business.
Pelosi, obam, and reid are the MOB bosses. They come around to our residences and say "pay up". If we say no, then they call in their enforcers -- the IRS -- to beat us up, take our property, force us out of business -- until we pay up.
There is no difference between the mafia MOB and these people. Let me repeat that. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
__________
"He [obama] got the best press known to man" - Tina Brown. "In the entire universe" - Howard Kurtz
Maffia = Top Dem Leadership
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:43 ET by MaximusBraveheartReps need to tell the truth on this and all issues! Agree w/ThisnThat message; it tells the story so people can understand the simple truth of how our government now wishes to opperate. Reps are way to nice and now need to let the truth be told. Our country is at stake. They sure seem to plan to kill the US dollar and our Country with their spending. Reps were responsible for this also, but the true conservatives need to regain power and set the Country into a period of saftey and prosperity via freedom & liberty. End the tyranny!
M-B
Re government run
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:37 ET by slickwillie2001Can't agree. Of the '15%' that don't have insurance, a minority of them truly can't get insurance. The others already qualify for Medicaid or Medicare and haven't signed up, would rather spend their money on something else (ie young invulnerables) or are illegals. The remainder number around 8 million. You don't mess up healthcare for 292 million people to help 8 million.
If you create an entitlement, meaning something for nothing or a substantial discount, that number will explode. That was the experience in Hawaii, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Oregon where states tried government insurance. The democratics will let it explode, because that's one path to single-payer. In the House and Senate bills, the subsidy levels were something like a ridiculous $50-70K a year in income. Those are not 'the poor'.
Of that 8 million 'uninsurable', how many could get insurance if interstate insurance was allowed, and all state and federal mandates were dropped, so that insurance companies could offer a catastrophic-only policy? How many young people would be willing to buy that policy? We'll never know because democratics will never allow that, because it means less government involvement in healthcare, not less.
I Wish, DaMama
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:46 ET by FranksamThe rest of us who do have insurance, leave us alone.
The chances of a government that leaves us alone:
1) slim
2) none
3) all of the above
4) see number 3
Not that I don't share your view, but that's why I keep telling my adult children that the best times are done. I feel sorry for them and their offspring.
DaMama
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 17:51 ET by Jonathan GoldwaterDaMama - isn't auto insurance mandatory?
Not by the federal government. Idiot.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:15 ET by JWFCertain states mandate auto insurance. Not Uncle Sam.
Why is it we know this and an idiot liar such as yourself does not.
Quit wasting our time. Try using the period occasionally. We are not your sole source of information. Lay of the question marks and exclamation points. And try google next time you want a question answered.
Nowhere is that distinction
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:19 ET by Jonathan GoldwaterNowhere is that distinction made in the post to which I was replying. Simply said government. Keep digging.
Actually, the distinction
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:23 ET by ckc1227Actually, the distinction was made, you're just too stupid to grasp it. Maybe you should stop digging. That hole should be deep enough to bury yourself in by now. Please do.
Jonathan Goldwater lies again.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:31 ET by JWFHe must have missed the headline of this forum.
Is Mandatory Health Insurance Even Constitutional?
He must have missed the write-up where it said federal government and federal mandatory health....
Is Jonathan Goldwater trying to convince us he is a liar or an idiot?
PbH2O
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:28 ET by UnsaneNowhere is that distinction made in the post to which I was replying. Simply said government. Keep digging. I will accept that as a confession of your ignorance. But you shouldn't feel bad even if you were capable of doing so; Statist/Socialists like you are typically just as ignorant as you are.
You either cannot, or refuse to, accept and understand the type of government that exists in the United States. The United States has a federal government. Your comment indicates that you well and truly believe the United States to have a unitary government.
Now, with this in mind, combined with the fact that the English language is a language that demands exact precision of its users, you simply have to specify which branch of government does what.
That being said, the federal government does not require me to carry any form of insurance whatever. I MUST carry property insurance where I live, but this is a condition of the lease I signed, which is a form of a contract. If I didn't want to carry property insurance, I could have not signed the lease and taken my business elsewhere.
As to auto insurance - one, this is a function of state government, and is done not to insure damage to SELF but damage to OTHERS. Either they do this or spend huge amounts of money on extra courts and plenty of attorneys. Two, even then, I STILL do not have to have auto insurance. Where I live, I barely drive as it is. I could sell off my truck and simply rely on buses, bicycles, and my own two feet, and not have ANY insurance at all.
The federal government is not a charity or a babying agency.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"DaMama - isn't auto
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:19 ET by ckc1227"DaMama - isn't auto insurance mandatory?"
Depends on what state you live in, and whether or not you drive a car.
Jonathan, you apparantly
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:42 ET by motherbeltJonathan, you apparantly didn't read much of this thread before you jumped in, so I will bring my comment up here in reply to you:
No one is required to carry auto insurance to cover their own losses. You may drive without a penny of collision coverage on your own car. You only have to carry insurance to cover damage that you might do to another party or property with your car.
This is true wherever states require auto insurance.
Mandated health insurance requires insurance to cover one's own medical bills.
Big difference.
MB, continuing down that
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 21:23 ET by ThisnThatMB, continuing down that path -- you also don't need auto insurance to ride as a passenger in a car; nor do you need auto insurance to use a crosswalk at an intersection, or to use a sidewalk next to a street, or to ride your bicycle down the street shared with cars. All those situations involve some risk, and everyone -- as a citizen -- gets to decide how much risk he wants to take, vs. transfering that risk to someone else -- an auto insurance company.
This drives liberals crazy, because these situations are untapped sources of income to the government. So, they put into play the "universal health coverage" tactic, making it mandatory. They can't stand the idea of free choice, just as they can't stand the idea that private citizens want to spend their money on things of their choice.
__________
"He [obama] got the best press known to man" - Tina Brown. "In the entire universe" - Howard Kurtz
No, it's required for the car, not the driver
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 22:12 ET by CobraMan"isn't auto insurance mandatory?"
No, it's required if you wish to register a car, and operate that car, at least in the State of Minnesota, but it's not mandatory that everyone buy liability insurance. You don't;' even need insurance if your not the registered owner, but that owner better have insurance if they want to allow you to drive the car. You see, the insurance is "mandatory" for the car, not the driver.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Illegal tyranny
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:31 ET by sevenIf the law demands I get insurance what happens when they DO NOT perform and I have to cancel the insurance?
Will they force me to buy high speed rail tickets to places I do not want to visit?
Yes.
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 03:48 ET by Red46They already do. Check out the subsidization of tickets on every government run train (that I know of).
The Supremes
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:48 ET by iveseenitallMandatory "healthcare"---One more reason to fight leftists being appointed to the Supreme Court.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
It would make sense for
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:50 ET by ForeverOnTheRightIt would make sense for state or federal to provide insurance for those who are unemployed or can't afford insurance. But to force people to buy insurance is unethical, and it's coercion.
States, not feds
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:51 ET by tim413Finally, people are listening to me. The silly argument re requiring auto ins., drivers lic., etc. is valid re each state's authority, but it is NOT re the fed's authority. The ind'l mandate SHOULD be struck down by the SCOTUS, but it would be unanimous. I have no idea what logic Bader's clerks will find, but she never lets the Constitution get in her way. What will fed'l health care look like without the MANDATE? Congress seems inclined to make young men and women subsidize coverage for older folks AND for young men to subsidize coverage for younger women. What will happen when younger men refuse to buy coverage? Younger women had better wake up and start lobbying for their states to set up gov't plans.
Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
Sorry, I meant the SCOTUS
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:56 ET by tim413Sorry, I meant the SCOTUS dec. would NOT be unanimous.
Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
States' Rights
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:01 ET by iveseenitallAlmost all the fights with Barry and his gang center around states rights. The Constitutional "professor" either doesn't know what he is talking about or is simply following his masters and ignoring the Constitution. I believe it is both.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
ISIA.. yes, it's probably
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:31 ET by celatorISIA.. yes, it's probably time for a good state's rights lawsuit to find its way to the Supreme Court. It's clear the Obama/Pelosi/Reid thugs are going to push the "General Welfare" phrase in the Preamble to cram government controlled health care down our throats. This, IMHO, would be a direct violation of the 10th Amendment.
I like James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the General Welfare (seems to me their thoughts on this topic ought to carry a lot of weight):
James Madison: "Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress."
In other words, the "general welfare" applies only to those powers granted to the Feds in the Constitution. Universal health care is not one of those powers.
And Thomas Jefferson agrees with Madison: "[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated;"
But we already know these thugs in the WH and Congress are trying to sell their health care nonsense by saying it's a "Constitutional Right."
Wouldn't it be amazing to see the MSM explain all this to the citizenry. But, of course, they are as ignorant of the US Constitution as Obama and Pelosi.
Here's an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/general-welfare
Mr. Obama's own words
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 03:58 ET by Red46state that he thinks the constitution restricts the federal government too much. His world view is not too hard to figure out if you read his books, listen to his speeches, look at his "work" history, check out his friends/associates throughout his life (according to his own words) and watch his actions. If he were interested in affordable health care for all, the fix would accomplish that. He is interested in government control of the economy instead, as evidenced by the number of people covered before and after health care reform. Also, by noting that very few of the factors effecting the costs of health care are addressed. And...why is the legislature so interested in covering ELECTIVE surgery as evidenced by their rabid pursuit of abortion coverage? If abortions are covered, I want an eye lift in my twilight years.
It is worth stating that the government runs very few departments efficiently/effectively. Ever been to county health? It is not a pleasant process-- though the staff does the best it can with what they have.
I think you are also
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:02 ET by optimistI think you are also missing the fact that the individual mandate is essentially an existance tax.
I do not need to own a car, in fact I had friends that lived in NYC that took their cars of the road for a year. Did they need to pay car insurance during that time? No, of course not. One only needs car insurance if they have a vehicle and want to use it on public roads.
According to Pelosi, I need to purchase health insurance simply because I draw breath. There is no way around this, unless Pelosi suggests that we could always kill ourselves. Of course, at that point you may also owe them a death tax.
The revolution will be fought at the ballot box
Besides, no one is required
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:53 ET by motherbeltBesides, no one is required to carry auto insurance to cover their own losses. You may drive without a penny of collision coverage on your own car. You only have to carry insurance to cover damage that you might do to another party or property with your car.
It's no surprise that Her Speakerness thinks constitutionality is a joke. She thinks that she and her buddies can do whatever they damn well please, as long as there are enough of them.
She also thinks that "when life begins" should have NO impact on the practice of abortion. She is a law unto herself.
To her and those like her, the "general welfare" phrase means that they get to decide what we need for our welfare, and then require us to pay for it.
After reading your posts
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:11 ET by optimistAfter reading your post and others here, I wonder how bad Dear Speaker would get her butt kicked in a fair debate with NB posters.
The revolution will be fought at the ballot box
Her manner of speaking
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 04:04 ET by Red46may be the thing that wins the day for her. She speaks as if we are all slow learners, thus we would be bored to death by her slow, deliberate, condescending tone. Take away the taxpayer provided booze on her plane. That might get her attention long enough for her to directly address any debate points with some energy.
"We Don't Need No Stinkin' Constitution"......Hugo Chavez
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:58 ET by donsalesHasn't anyone else noticed that the U.S. Constitution which all of these morons swore to defend and uphold is a meaningless piece of paper to them????
They do as they damned well please, and spit on the Constitution; and if it is a "living" document as liberals contend, it is now "HOMELESS" in our expanded welfare state......
There are countless examples where these miscreants have demonstrated wreckless disregard of our country and its core principles and values, and their constituents should have demanded their immediate recall from office......
After they push through whatever they desire, it is up to the SCOTUS to rule on its constitutionality, only there aren't enough judges, days in the year. or funds for the SCOTUS to review and rule on these activities.
McCain-Feingold being the latest case in point......
On healthcare, DEMS are hoping to open the floodgates so that it will take years and years to stop this madness.....
We can't let this happen......
Nowhere to Run....Nowhere To Hide.....
When you are a dictator,
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:05 ET by ThisnThatWhen you are a dictator, the law bends to your will. Pelosi, reid, obama, shumer, and the entire democratic majority in Congress are law-breaking dictators or dictator enablers. The don't serve the people, they serve only themselves and their masters. It's now becoming obvious to everyone. Keep it up pelosi, soon you'll have nowhere to hide.
__________
"He [obama] got the best press known to man" - Tina Brown. "In the entire universe" - Howard Kurtz
Maybe Hate is too strong a term
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:16 ET by ahusserI am starting to "hate" the gang of 3 (triumvirate?) more than I "hate" Osama Bin Laden. Especially when I see Pelosi's mug.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
The problem the Dems have is
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:13 ET by BruzillaThe problem the Dems have is that it's impossible to eliminate pre-existing condition limits without mandating that everyone have insurance. The reason insurers have pre-existing condition limits is to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy insurance, then keeping it for a month or two until the get better, then dropping out until they get sick again. It doesn't take too many people getting $200,000 or so in medical services for $400 in premiums before any insurance program would collapse, and there is absolutely zero chance any insurer would support no pre-ex limits without 100% enrollment.
Bruzilla
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:30 ET by ahusserGood point. Our friend Jer thinks universal healthcare is a noble goal. But I believe it is the road to hell paved with good intentions. You have pointed out how the freeloaders and cheaters will beat it in only one scenario that of pre-existing conditions. You know it will become "cold and heartless" to turn away anybody from this boondoggle called UHC for any reason. I don't know much about the economics or legal points of this legislation but I do know how humans behave and interact and I think the whole plan will be open to the deadbeats and freeloaders in such vast numbers that healthcare will collapse and become a joke. I don't even want to address the corruption inducing bureaucratic nightmare that will ensue. The only way this 'plan' will work is at the point of a gun.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
One problem, Bruzilla: the
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:59 ET by motherbeltOne problem, Bruzilla: the way it's currently being fashioned, one would only have to pay a fine for not having insurance. So what's to stop a healthy young guy from paying his fine of, I don't know, $1000 a year, and then signing up when he gets sick, since he can't be turned down?
The only way to avoid that is to either make the fines unbearable..in the $20-25,000 range, or actually put people in jail for not having insurance. I think either one of those remedies would be ruled unconstitutional.
Not that that will stop Her Speakerness and her buddies from trying....
It might help to point out
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:44 ET by BruzillaIt might help to point out the difference between "covered risk" and "shared risk" insurance. Covered risk is what auto and home policies are, and function under the premise that nothing is likely to happen to your car or home. Insurers take in premiums, and whatever money they don't payout in claims is converted to profit, and since most people drive their cars and live in houses without ever filing claims, the premiums can be low.
Health insurance is shared risk because the premise is people are going to get sick, are going to need healthcare multiple times while covered, and the insurer shares these expenses across all the plan members. This is why most health insurers are not-for-profit/member-owned co-ops operations as there is very little profit.
For your example, for a shared risk plan to succeed, you need to have healthy people paying into the system, with their money being used to pay the claims of the sick. So the more health people you have paying into the system, and not putting in a lot of claims, lowers costs across the board. If you have someone paying a fine of $1,000/yr, instead of say $3,500 in premiums, your plan is far more at risk of collapse.
That's my point.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:44 ET by motherbeltThey'd have to have a severe penalty to make people buy the insurance and share the risk, instead of paying the penalty.
NO.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:47 ET by jessieHNO. It isn't. Most of our "elected servants" can't get the Constitution right. I'm not a supreme court judge, but even I can tell it's not legal.
Constitutionality
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:46 ET by xraynovaThe Constitution is a lot like the Bible... everybody thinks they know exactly what it says... and virtually nobody has taken time to actually study it.
In fact, you don't need to be a Constitutional scholar to understand that document. We have presidential proof that one can even teach Constitutional law without having a fundamental understanding of it.
For anyone who has actually read it, the question, "Is mandatory health insurance even Constitutional?" doesn't even need to be asked.
Think
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 04:12 ET by Red46just for a sec about what you said. He does understand it. He doesn't like it. I have heard too many people making comments about how this or that happens or gets by him (like vetting his "czars"). These are not mistakes he is making. He acts upon tenents of a philosophy. It isn't magic. It is not a mystery. It is Progressive thought. He is a true believer that a centralized government is a good thing. Too bad these people are so intellectually immature. It doesn't take an Ivy League grad to look across the pond, or at the lovely Venezuela to see the result. Royalty and serfs. We already fought that war.
Constitutional??
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 14:54 ET by cesteshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVsr-_-v2sI
Save the republic and replace congress!!
As for Obama's proposed health care summit...
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:41 ET by sam12663... with Republicans on CSPAN; President Obama is on the ropes, and he knows it. Republicans MUST continue to be the smart party, and not fall into the web of deception that this president is capable of. This is a classic Chicago style mob hit; get them on 'safe' territory, make them comfortable, and then come out blasting!
McConnell and Boehner need to pull a Michael Corleone/ Solazzo/ Police chief move (metaphorically of course); just as Obama thinks he's got the upper hand, those guys need to turn the tables and expose him for who is truly is.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
I don't recall anything
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:03 ET by ThoreauI don't recall anything Obama has proposed being Constitutional. Healthcare is just the latest. The executive branch no longer follows the laws that give them authority in the first place.
no legitimacy
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:45 ET by jon_torlinWithout proof of his birth certificate, his being in the WH is a violation of the Constitution. Therefore everything he's done was against the law. There's a lot he's done.
-Jon
It's written "promote the
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:06 ET by rbosqueIt's written "promote the general welfare", liberals get that confused with "provide".
Constitutionality Links
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:25 ET by slickwillie2001My collection of links from the last few months on the constitutionality question:
Illegal Health Reform: http://www.washingtonpost.com
"Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's commerce powet expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases...."
Is National Health Insurance Constitutional? http://blog.heritage.org
"The 'General Welfare' clause gives Congress the power 'To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.' This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.
During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause 'amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.' But James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution,' explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress."
Constitutionality of Health Care Overhaul Questioned: http://www.washingtontimes.com
"'I would be willing to wager with Professor Barnett that the Supreme Court would uphold such a mandate, given the court's expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. In fact, I don't think the vote would be close,' Washington and Lee University professor Timothy Stoltzfus Jost said."
Federal mandated purchases is unconstitutional
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:31 ET by CobraManNo where in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to mandate that the US Citizens purchase anything. The Constitution authorizes Congress to REGULATE commerce "amongst the several States," but it doesn't allow them to MANDATE it. Of course, that's not going to stop Congress from trying.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
When they try....
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:43 ET by jon_torlinThat's when they need to be impeached, Republicans and Democrats alike.(especially that one Republican they conned into changing his mind after a bribe)
They violate their oath in trying.
-Jon
Obama is getting ready to pick
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:46 ET by ahusseranother supreme after the impending retirement of O'connor. The court will be lost after that. The libs had the court for 40 years. I'd hate to lose it again. There are weaknesses in the Constitution. Lifetime appointment of Federal Judges is one of them once they learned they could legislate from the bench.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
There is no deeper
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 17:06 ET by G. MayThere is no deeper intrusion upon personal liberty than government prescribing the manner in which its citizens will care for their own bodies.
Mandatory health care
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 19:52 ET by tampamom25Liberal trash talk.....the Constitution does NOT give them the right to force us to buy anything. If anything, health care should be a state issue, not a federal government boondogle. Keep it up all you liberal wingnuts with your conversations about forcing us to pay for healthcare.....you're just reminding the American people of the urgent need to get you OUT of office as soon as we can!!!
They see it....
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 04:23 ET by Red46they know that if they pass the law, by the time the Supremes see the case, too much water will have passed under the bridge and the tentacles of government control will have found a hold. Do not think these people are acting capriciously. You have heard them say this has been a 60 year project. It has been. Ever see a predator circling its prey? If not, watch the Progressives and their spittle flecked lips.
The "decaf" I drank wasn't. The effects have worn off, I have vented. Now I am going to bed. I would be concerned about every bill that passes throught hese legislative bodies, including the naming of the post offices. A sentence here...a mandate there...
The Federal (FERAL) government is not longer Constitutional!
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 05:14 ET by jsbrodheadAmendment 13 of the US Constitution OUTLAWS SLAVERY AND ENDENTURED SERVITUDE...
Hey Big-shot Progressives in the FERAL govt... Dead Ted and Murtha are holding seats for you on the bus! Why not reduce your own CO2 footprints to near ZERO! Dead Ted left instructions for you, though WE THE PEOPLE might need to read them to you ignorant dung-bettles.