Posted on 10/28/2013 5:12:12 AM PDT by JOHN W K
See: Rubio Seeks Obama's Support for Delay of Individual Mandate
"Sen. Marco Rubio is urging President Barack Obama to support his bill that would delay Obamacare’s individual mandate until six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally."
What I would like to ask Senator Rubio is: Under what provision of our Constitution is Congress authorized to impose a fine upon a citizen who exercises a fundamental right to purchase health insurance to meet their personal medical and health care needs and refuses “federally approved” health insurance?
Does the Senator from the great State of Florida disagree with what our Supreme Court has stated? That a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
And if Senator Rubio agrees with what the Court stated above, then why does he agree to allow the federal government to circumvent this fundamental right ”… six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally”?
JWK
"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
No. I want ObamaCare the Law to be implemented on schedule with all its whiskers and warts.
I want these liberal do-gooders and those that supported him and its passage to see what they have wrought.
If anything, I want to see a package come out of the House that removes any exemptions the President illegally gave out.
Rubio has become a GOP scam.......
No delay. Repeal it or own it.
Rubio needs for the mess of obamacare to be ameliorated until after the election to protect Democrats’ chances. Rubio and the other mainline Republicans have determined that there are too many Republicans in the House to be able to control them properly and would like to return to a more comfortable minority status so that Conservatives can’t interfere with their dream of being the Official Opposition in a Democrat Socialist State. In that capacity they dream of being eaten last.
I had an opportunity to talk to a long term MD a couple of weeks ago. He brought up the Odummercare Law and stated that he is going to go another 2 years and then retire. He said that most of his doctor friends who are 50s have already decided or have retired... As we talked he mentioned that this program will fail and that the feds want it to fail so we can easily move to a socialist 1 payer system... We talked about when that happens, how the death panels that we have heard about will become front and center....
We are well on our way to socialism and I am not sure we can stop it.....
Wrong side Rubio screwing up again...
Rubio wants it repealed, but that ain’t gonna happen with a divided Congress and a Marxist Kenyan usurper in the Spite House. What he’s trying to do is ease the pain millions are feeling right now because of this boondoggle foisted on us by Democrats.
It’s a measure aimed at easing the suffering until full repeal can be achieved.
Personally, I’d rather not see a delay now. Dems and the pres had a chance to cover their asses a month ago during the shutdown and refused. Now they should get what they deserve for their extreme partisanship.
Rubio is dangerous in the respect that he wants to advance himself quickly. He bounces around on issues and spends little or no real time thinking from a principled stand. He is either too eager to jump on board with an issue like immigration, or he comes in after the fact on the issue of delaying Obamacare. That train left the station with the rollout. Just now, people are seeing the truth of Obamacare. A delay would only give the communist democrats the time to spin and lie before the 2014 elections.
Marco, the only thing that would help now is total repeal. The GOP has a real chance to get that done, but they will unfotunately have no plan to take advantage of the gift.
I am totally expecting that if all ages of Americans want to be on a first-rate communicative basis with their doctors, they had better learn Hindi, Sanskrit, Bahamian, etc.
Is the senator from the great state of Florida at all concerned about all the millions of people who are being booted off of their existing plans because of the ACA?
Is the senator from the great state of Florida at all concerned about the massive rate increases caused by the ACA that millions and millions of Americans are just now finding out about?
Is the senator from the great state of Florida at all concerned about the cuts to Medicare that are to be used to fund the ACA?
What about the medical device tax that will be passed along to consumers?
What about the cost of the massive intrusive bureaucracy that the ACA is creating?
What about the vastly increased power of the IRS?
What about the doctors that are being driven out of the medical practice?
What about all the formerly full-time employees who have now been cut to part time employment because of the ACA?
What about the bureaucrats that will now be making medical decisions instead of doctors (i.e. death panels)?
What say you, Mr. Rubio?
With all these things to think about, why are you still supporting the ACA?
JWK
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.
“If anything, I want to see a package come out of the House that removes any exemptions the President illegally gave out.”
I suspect all the exemptions are legal since they use the phrase “as determined by the Secretary of Health” 3300 times in the 2700 pages.
Please send that to Rubio! Perhaps he might think before he opens his mouth!
We cannot allow Justice Roberts to have the last say. OCare must be dead and buried and the Constitutional principle restored one way or another. Best bet is through Mark Levine’s state constitutional amendment convention, led on by a Palin / Cruz Administration. Si se puede.
House Republicans already passed versions of this delay.
A bigger problem is people losing their current insurance.
Better to argue for a bill that ends that, make Obamacare compete on a ‘level playing field’ is libs call it.
Marco Rubio is done. It is so over. This is the perfect example of why we need term limits. The system corrupts them faster than we can primary them. Only the state legislatures can save us now.
http://www.conventionofstates.com
Then it becomes an issue with equality under the law vs. (in)direct taxation.
They can’t have it piece-meal to keep it and still (what the judicial oligarchy deems) Constitutional
Madison warned us against a second convention just after our Constitution was ratified, and before our Constitution’s bill of rights was added to our Constitution. He wrote:
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
And more recently, here is what Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
The simple truth is, there are too many unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention and in the end our existing Supreme Court and Congress would be in charge of answering these questions.
Let us review the reasons why an Article V convention is a dangerous idea:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;
3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;
4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;
5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;
6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;
7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
JWK
If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?
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.