The word insurance does not appear in the Massachusetts Constitution. However, that Constitutions Declaration of Rights says: All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
How does a mandate that forces a man to surrender some of his liberty and some of his property in purchasing a government-approved health-insurance policy comport with the natural rights to liberty and property expressly protected by the Massachusetts Constitution?
posted on 09/26/2012 7:37:57 PM PDT
("Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." - Barack Hussein Obama - Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.)
Our states are laboratory’s of freedom.
The Majority of liberal jackasses in Ma wanted it and the got it.
These are folks that gave Kennedy, Frank, and Kerry lifetime positions.
At the National level we have rejected this liberal crap, but Obama and Pelosi shoved it down our throat stifling the voice of the majority.
Romney did no such thing. He merely did what his constituents wanted.
posted on 09/26/2012 7:43:23 PM PDT
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson