XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:52:23 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>On 6/24/2012 5:35 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> By PETER BAKER
>> WASHINGTON — With the Supreme Court likely to render judgment on
>> President Obama’s health care law this week, the White House and
>> Congress find themselves in a position that many advocates of the
>> legislation once considered almost unimaginable.
>>
>> In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt
>> that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to
>> tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will
>> eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”
>>
>> Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a
>> year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the
>> House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the
>> Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health
>> insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you
serious?”
>>
>> Opponents of the health plan were indeed serious, and so was the Supreme
>> Court, which devoted more time to hearing the case than to any other in
>> decades. A White House that had assumed any challenge would fail now
>> fears that a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s presidency may be partly or
>> completely overturned on a theory that it gave little credence. The
>> miscalculation left the administration on the defensive as its legal
>> strategy evolved over the last two years.
>>
>> “It led to some people taking it too lightly,” said a Congressional
>> lawyer who like others involved in drafting the law declined to be
>> identified before the ruling. “It shouldn’t strike anybody as a close
>> call,” the lawyer added, but “given where we are now, do I wish we had
>> focused even more on this? I guess I would say yes.”
>>
>> Looking back, Democrats said they had had every reason for confidence,
>> given decades of Supreme Court precedents affirming Congress’s authority
>> to regulate interstate commerce...
>
>And that is the core of this and many other overreaching legislative
>issues: misinterpretation of the fundamental clause.
>
>"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the
>several States..."
>
>There is NO delegation of authority to "regulate interstate commerce"!!!
> The fundamental argument in favor Obamacare is quite simply and
>entirely based on a deliberate and unjust misinterpretation of the
>original grant of authority.
>
>Regulate: to MAKE REGULAR, to ENSURE the FREE-FLOW of.
>Commerce: GOODS in TRADE.
>States: State GOVERNMENTS.
>
>In short, the original grant was to ensure that state governments did
>NOT interfere with trade. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It
>is NOT a grant to unilaterally CONTROL anything that once traveled in
>trade, may travel in trade, may impact trade or anything that could
>theoretically be considered trade (e.g. non-goods, services, etc.).
>
>As soon as a just government starts to compel it immediately becomes
>unjust. I have the FREEDOM to choose. Obamacare destroys freedom, it
>eliminates choice and forces behavior. NONE OF THOSE ARE TENETS OF A
>JUST GOVERNMENT.
>
>OBAMACARE RUNS COUNTER TO THE DESIGNS OF A JUST GOVERNMENT. I don't
>know how the supreme Court will find, but regardless of their finding
>(even if they opine that it /is/ constitutional -- a bald-faced lie), it
>still runs counter to the original purpose and intent for establishing
>this nation and spits in the face of the original constitutional intent.
And an even more basic tenet of law is that the
law must be enforceable, liberals won't understand
this.
Stopping a person from doing something can
be enforced, making a person do something is
impossible if they choose not to do it.
Most laws cover things that only a few people
might be involved in, so jails can be built to hold
the violators, can you see where this is going?
Trying to force people to do something that
they may not have the means to do should in
itself be avoided, the object of laws is to limit
crime, not create criminals out of ordinary
citizens.
Most working people have periods of good
earnings and then an occasional problem
finding a job, leaving them subject to criminal
prosecution if a law requires payment of moneys.
Liberal control laws are already being imposed
with selective prosecution in some cities, another
way for the clique in power to discriminate legally.
Insurance premiums are already a serious
problem in this economy.
But no other type of insurance comes close
to the amounts involved in health care insurance,
the people that voted for this stupid law are just
ignorant of the limited incomes of ordinary
working people.
This law would have been horrible when times
were good, in the present economic conditions
it is unthinkable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
