Posted on 09/02/2009 1:41:18 PM PDT by jcrue
I'm looking for quotes from people in Congress who believe and have stated that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
Any help would be appreciated.
//jcrue
Any help would be appreciated.
//jcrue
It’s a pretty weak argument, as most of what the federal government has done over the last 50 years is blatantly unconstitutional.
No.
They wouldn’t DARE.
I know SC Senator Jim DeMint has said so in those words — but not sure where the quote might be in writing. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has also said something along those lines...You might google them regarding healthcare or visit their websites.
Moat of them don’t know what the Constitution is!
I thought Robert Byrd said something. Could have been referring to the ‘nuclear option’, tho.
About 85-90% of the current Federal Government is totally unconstitutional.
You think any of them have even read the thing?!?
(Assumes facts not in evidence.)
Yep. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the federal government with it understood that anything not specifically allowed was prohibited.
Since FDR it has been turned around to be completely opposite with Congress believing that whatever is not specifically prohibited is allowed.
US Constitution
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
17 Sep 1797
Taxing and Spending Clause – Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution is sometimes referred to as the "The Taxing and Spending Clause". It's intent is to grant Congress the power to impose taxes for paying for three general areas:
(1) pay off the Debt incurred during the war for independence, (2) provide for national Defense, and (3) provide for the general Welfare. The first paragraph reads as follows: (first paragraph) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
--SNIP--
SOURCE America, they're lying to you - Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority
America's Independent Party | August 20, 2009 | Bob Bailey
FR Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 by EternalVigilance
It is difficult to understand how our national leaders can pass many of the laws they do given they have no authority to do so. It is also difficult to understand how everything seems to have been turned upside down -- what use to mean one thing now means the opposite. Well, here are the facts regarding the intent of the Constitution and how politicians attempt to convince us they are operating within its confines.
Most congressmen (and judges, and presidents, and justice dept. officials, and treasury officials, and....) don’t think ANYTHING is unconstitutional. To them, the law is the King speaking.
“It is difficult to understand how our national leaders can pass many of the laws they do given they have no authority to do so.”
Because PEOPLE WANT THEM TO!
Facts about the 10th Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.
The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution’s principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.
====================================
UPDATE---TEXAS BILL HCR 50 HAS PASSED THE HOUSE 99-36.
(a) Affirms that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution;
(b) Serves notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.
Ron Paul is the only one I know of...but he’s well hated here at FR. He’s probably the only congress critter that know enough about the Constitution to know.
I don’t think Duncan Hunter Jr has made any statements about this either. I’d think he would.
Dan Lungren in Rancho Cordova Aug 26, 2009:
Paraphrase: I don’t see anything in the constitution that allows me the right to vote to tell you... (huge applause line).
I haven’t seen the video from this one posted yet.
I’m seeking election to Congress and I believe it to be UnConstitutional.
My Congress-critter, Chet Edwards recently said at a town-hall meeting that it WAS Constitutional because of, you guessed it, the Interstate Commerce clause.
Bryan, Texas:
Questioner: “Where is the Constitutional Authority for this bill?”
Crowd: Cheering. . .
Chet Edwards: “Well the Interstate Commerce clause . . .”
Crowd: Boos, jeers!
Chet Edwards: “If you think THIS is UnConstitutional, you must think many other Federal programs are UnConstitutional, as well. Do you want us to take THOSE back, too?”
Questioner: “I tell you what, you let me keep MY money, you can keep your programs.”
Crowd: Cheers.
Chet Edwards: “OK. How many of you would really like to see the Medicare program end, raise your hands.” (Chet though he’d asked the perfect rhetorical question.)
Crowd: 1/3rd raised their hands, another third shouted, “Privatize it!”
Chet Edwards: stammering for a minute, didn’t expect this answer - “Well, I don’t think your beliefs represent the beliefs of this district. . .”
I think they DO represent the views of this district. It’s not the services in question at issue; it’s the government involvement.
http://www.TimothyForCongress.com
Any State needs or at least wants its books to be reconciled. And that comes about, even just electronically, from the federal government.
For instance Alaska could, resource wise, tell the federal government screw you, we'll print our own money (like CA's IOU's), and follow our own laws; and Alaskan citizens would make out fine - small population, plenty resources to offer. But it does not. Why?
Of course the other bottom line is whether the federal government then sends in military force, like has happened before. And of course whether the personnel of that military force have any interest at all in apprehending responsible, but independent minded, Alaskan citizens.
I saw this quite graphically in the State highway programs. The Federal Highway Admin (FHWA) would have only several environmental and engineering bureucrats monitoring State planning and projects, but had virtually absolute authority given that they administered 80-90% of the funding.
It was amazing. What or where was that funding? When the State and feds were at each other throats, say over an environmental impact, which was often the case, why didn't the State planners say screw you? They did not because the State would not get the "federal" money, even though that money was just a bunch of electrons transmitted to some account. If the State Engineer said to the contractor go ahead and build it anyway, and we'll pay you from state IOU's, would the federal government send in troops to arrest whomever?
Hence in health care it will come down to the threat of federal dollars, however that is played, thus rendering the US Constitution meaningless like in so many other venues and for so many past years.
The sad thing is elsewhere in the world, or to the ignorant, this appears as the ugliness of US capitalism, when actually it is the ugliness of the sinister Left - lies, deceit, extortion.
Via the Left we are not that far from barbarism.
funny you mentioned Chet, I knew him way back while attending Baylor. He had a music studio in Waco and I worked in one of the nightclubs in town and I worked with his staff on a couple of projects.
Nice guy but don’t like his politics.
Good luck!
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.