Posted on 03/30/2012 6:29:41 AM PDT by IbJensen
I couldn’t agree more, but it seems the Federal Government has decided that it alone defines what powers it has, and thus by exclusion what rights we retain under the Federal Constitution.
“The chain” that our founders so elegantly described as the function of the Federal Constitution is not attached to anything but the Government it was intended to restrain and so the Federal Government is limited by nothing but their own will.
They carry their chain where ever they will only to uses it as a lash against we the people & our states.
It seems some what obvious to me that we must find away to overthrow this lawless government.
glad to see some people know the law
“What makes you think Romney’s appoinments will be any better, certainly in light of his performance in Massachusetts?”
My only reason for believing Romney’s appointment’s will be better is that you could hardly get worse than Obama. That for me is enough.
In the end it is not the Federal employees in black-robes that must save us from this tyranny, it is us in our States who must find a means of effective resistance from the ground up. It is not the natural inclination of men particular that subset of men interested in becoming politicians to give up power. It will therefore be unlikely that many of them may be preswated to seriously aid in the rebalancing of power away from them, and even if they did. The mechanics by which they did would just as quickly find itself in uses in reverse.
No my friends, this war cannot be won in Washington D.C. Romney, newt, Obama, it really makes very little difference in the long run. Our real battle is in our own States. We must secure greater control of our State & local Goverments.
We must insure that our population is educated as to the dangers of centerlized government, and we must begin organizing our States to help us resist Washington’s intrusions practically. The security of our liberty cannot be placed in 9 federal employees wearing black robes, but rather must rest in our self-interested ability to secure it.
He who has the investment in liberty must be the one with the power to defend it.
The law prohibits insurance companies from turning down applicants or charging higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions, thereby adding costs intended to be offset by bringing in more young and healthy clients through the mandate, with its penalty for not purchasing insurance.But if the individual mandate were ruled out, asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, what would happen to the insurance industry, which would now be in the hole for $350 billion over 10 years?
Therein lies the underlying problem. The way the law is written, if the individual mandate fails, people won't be buying insurance, they'll be buying healthcare. The whole concept of "insurance" will have been destroyed -- by an act of Congress.
Buying insurance means sharing the risk of a certain expense with others. Insurance is, literally, a hedge against future costs.
Obamacare, however, converts insurance directly into a healthcare provider. People aren't required to buy it until they need it!. That's not insurance -- the whole principle of "insurance" has been averted.
Under the circumstances, insurance companies would be forced to set their premiums at some number in excess of actual healthcare outlays. Which would:
1. Make the premiums exceedingly expensive -- more expensive than the actual cost of the healthcare.
2. Meaning that, consequently, nobody could afford them.
3. Meaning that, the whole healthcare system breaks down.
4. Which is precisely what the federal government wants -- so that they can takeover and establish a single-payer system, themselves.
The Obamacare law -- with or without the individual mandate -- is totally unworkable. And absolutely insane.
“Leftist aka progressives think tax dollars are they governments. Not the taxpayer.Once the government takes your money, it’s theirs, not yours.”
This fact seems rather clear given the way they have come to label them tax dollars “revenue” lol.
The Federal government did not trade for theses dollars, they took them by force from people who objected to the governments activity’s and intrusions upon their lives.
There was no consenting “trade” involved at all!
I regret very much that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas choose not to speak during theses hearings. I understand his point in the meaninglessness of speaking when ones opinion has already been formed. But the man is by far in my opinion the most honorable and intellectual honest of the 9 Federal Employees.
I very much value his opinions as being by far the most reasoned in law of the lot. For a man of few words Clarence Thomas is a man of great words.
Maybe it’s already explained down the thread (I’m sort of running in and out) but could you explain what you mean in simple language? Essentially, is what Roberts said good or bad?
Many of the checks and balances have been forgotten or totally ignored.
Congress was given the power to declare war. Not the president, some elected bureaucrat in the oval office, CONGRESS!
That way, if we went to war, it would not be some guys opinion that we should do it, it would be 50 COUNTRIES!!! declaring war on some other country.
Look at Article III. The trial of ALL CRIMES shall happen IN THE STATE where it was committed.
That gives THE STATES (the people) the right to decide if some Federal law was stupid as it could get. Low-flow toilets? Give me a break!
That’s why if you read through Supreme Court decisions (like the Brady decision) you will see guys like Clarence Thomas saying “There is no general Federal police power”.
A few understand. Not many. Most people just want to rally and convince the Federal government to pass laws for their own particular agenda. Save the snails, or whatever.
Roberts said states have been compromising their sovereignty for decades through increased reliance on the federal government for money and accompanying directions on the governance of state affairs.
She said she was a “wise Latina”. Where does she the think the federal government gets this money to hand out?
Thank you, I did read that but I was hoping he was saying it in a way meaning “that’s a bad thing and we should reverse it”.
Legalese immediately makes me discombobulated.
The States sold their sovereignty for “Federal Dollars”. The sheep sold their souls for the same “Federal Dollars”. Both sold their souls[The States figuratively, the sheep literally] to the Feds for money the Feds did not even own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.