Posted on 03/14/2017 8:36:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Where in the Constitution does the congress or any other government entity have the authority to derive and dictate a healthcare program to it’s citizenry at all?
Unless everything in the US code falls generally under the “general welfare” clause, I see no authority for most of what congress has done to us....
“Where is the constitutional authority for government mandates in health insurance contracts?”
(Warning: Sarcasm ahead.)
Isn’t there a clause somewhere in the constitution that indicates that whenever the Federal Government spending reaches enough volume to be numerically impossible to even dream of paying off or that if the government builds up enough arms and runs off to foreign lands to try them out while creating a right for a homeland mother and father to execute their own child yet unborn and protecting the deed as a form of healthcare, that it may then assume the responsibility of dictating to the people the best way to utilize their moneys and care for their health and for companies to invest?
I haven’t found it in there yet.
But ISn’t that how this government is behaving lately?
Article 5. 9 states have passed the resolution.
The federal Government will never amend it is up to the states to pass article 5 resolutions. 9 have done so thus far
“Legal scholars all across the nation were absolutely stunned by the idiotic court opinion delivered by roberts- they could not believe the mental gymnastics he went through trying to justify his reason for voting for it- It was one of the most shameful votes ever- really...”
When Roberts announced that decision, red flags went up everywhere for people who could see the lunacy of a ruling coming from what’s supposed to be one of the brightest legal scholars in our nation. Because it made absolutely no sense, it wasn’t long before talk of conspiracy theories started, with blackmail being the most common.
With Wikileaks revealing how the CIA has been monitoring and recording the conversations and correspondence of our nation’s leaders, all the way up to the President, it is highly likely the CIA also has massive databases, filled with the most intimate and personal secrets, obtained through their surveillance programs, of not only the current SCOTUS Justices, but of many, if not ALL federal judges across our nation. Once a person’s secrets are known by another, those secrets can be used as leverage against that individual. Exactly what it is in Roberts past, that if disclosed, could bring ruin upon him, possible homosexual affairs, ‘bending the rules’ to adopt his children, whatever it may be, was certainly enough to be used to coerce him into finding a way to justify his ruling on Obamacare.
What motive would a rogue intelligence agency have to be interested in making Commiecare the law of the land? One obvious reason is because it sets up yet another massive database of the personal medical records of almost every person in our nation, expanding the surveillance abilities of that agency.
They pulled it out of their ass - that’s why it stinks!
“Can’t wait until they decide that I can only take 80% of the food I purchase at the grocery store out because the rest goes to a homeless shelter or foodbank.... “
Very prescient of you. IF we don’t manage to turn this monstrosity during Trump’s administration, it’s probably a certainty that the next free “right” will be for food security. Or, they may pass that and go straight to a “right” to a guaranteed basic income, which will include food.
Bingo!
The root of the problem is in the insurance companies.
It is a living document, one of these days it will say that you have a right to free internet
>
Unless everything in the US code falls generally under the “general welfare” clause, I see no authority for most of what congress has done to us....
>
Yes, a CLAUSE, that negates, not just the Section, or the Article, but the *whole* of the document from which it is embedded, which is to limit the power and scope of govt.
Makes PERFECT sense...to a lawyer\politician or imbecile, but I repeat myself.
[[When Roberts announced that decision, red flags went up everywhere for people who could see the lunacy of a ruling coming from what’s supposed to be one of the brightest legal scholars in our nation. Because it made absolutely no sense, it wasn’t long before talk of conspiracy theories started, with blackmail being the most common.]]
Exactly- I remember reading their conclusions right after the law was passed- It was a real travesty of justice and a blatant violation of our constitutional rights-
I wrote back then that before the HC law- In an extreme example- man was free IF he so chose to, to wander this country never [paying anything ever again- it was his inalienable right to do so- Sure, life would be hard- no driving, no health care, no dental no life insurance- but he was free to live off the land, make his own clothes, and die in the wilderness IF he so chose to do so- There was no mandate that he purchase anything
Along comes obama who makes it a crime not to purchase health care- punishable by a fine- and Roberts thought this was legal? Roberts betrayed this country and violated our inalienable rights!
Petraeus was run off because they "found" things in his email.
President Trump was "wiretapped" by the US gov't looking for a Russian connection.
Justice Roberts likes child pornography and either give them the ruling they wanted, OR else. Most lawyers would sell their souls and their families to save their necks.
Oh, I don't know if it was child pornography, or Robert's longtime affair with a law clerk, or whatever but it is what POSSIBLY happened.
Just ask those “supreme” court justices who by the way are immune from obamacare.
Great question. Of course the authority for this is nowhere in the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment, powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states and to the people.
The 30% penalty should read maximum of, rather than, must charge.
AHCA would likely be upheld based on the precedent of wrongly decided cases, from Wickard Filburn to NFIB v. Sebelius. A Rancher was banned from growing his own wheat for his own farm animals on his own land on the theory that it affects the market for interstate commerce. And a penalty for not engaging in Commerce is a tax. Mow all commerce is considered Federal jurisdiction.
Confirm Gorsuch and hope to get our original constitution with amendments back over the next eight years.
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.