Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cornelis

The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.


2 posted on 12/22/2009 9:00:17 AM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Man50D; holdonnow; Clintonfatigued; romanesq; justiceseeker93; ElkGroveDan; rodguy911; SkyPilot; ...

Can we mobilize a huge team of conservative lawyers to file suit against these thugs (US Congress) as a group and individually?


9 posted on 12/22/2009 9:04:53 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead (Clean the RAT/RINO Sewer in 2010 and 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.

And I believe there are two or three US Supreme Court decisions that specifically say that.
36 posted on 12/22/2009 9:28:54 AM PST by djf (Invest now! Buy paper! Earn interest! That's more paper!! (A little soy sauce and you CAN eat it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

“The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.”

I suspect it hurts us to take absurd positions like this. The bill may be unconstitutional; but if so, it is not because “Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.” There are likely equal protection problems (the Nelson payoff, among others), and some of the bill likely stretches the interstate commerce clause farther than a moderate Supreme Court can accept.

If all the businesses in your area decided they would not do business with Christians, I doubt you would be saying that “Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate” discrimination based on religious principles (which it does not, of course).

By the way, I am convinced that the framers would say that Congress was never intended to have the power to enact Obamacare (or Social Security, for that matter). But, arguing for a Jeffersonian “strict interpretation” today is about as absurd as arguing that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment should not ban ear cropping or branding.


41 posted on 12/22/2009 9:35:24 AM PST by olrtex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

We keep getting screwed again & again. I have no illusion that the US Supreme Court will ever have so much as a hint of balls to overrule this legislation and RULE CHANGE as unconstitutional. WE NEED AMERICAN REVOLUTION II TO OVERTHROW THESE SOCIALIST BASTARDS & 0BOZO THE KENYAN COMMIE PIG AND TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO ITS CONSTIUTIONAL ROOTS & LAWS, AND TO RESTORE OUR FREEDOMS & LIBERTIES.


66 posted on 12/22/2009 9:55:21 AM PST by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

Can they pass laws that require 2/3s majority to repeal of change them?

They so desire the Health Care Entitlement that they are willing to destroy the country to capture their long cherished dream.

I say we all enact Health Care for the Constitution and take these people OUT of office BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

This will not stand.


84 posted on 12/22/2009 10:13:07 AM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing. Do not count on the Constitutionality argument to win the day.

110 posted on 12/22/2009 10:55:27 AM PST by MeanGreen2008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D

Exactly, thank you!


177 posted on 12/22/2009 7:45:48 PM PST by Weirdad (A Free Republic, not a "democracy" (mob rule))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
The existence of a constitutional rule/provision that would allow congress to make a law unchallengeable for all time would be so absurdly counter to the spirit of our form of governance that it would be common knowledge to both constitutional scholars and laypeople alike. Therefore no such provision exists. It's that simple.
189 posted on 12/23/2009 4:10:03 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson