[Nachum]

And now it begins

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[tacticalogic]

Overturn Wickard v Filburn!

[tacticalogic]

As for the tax penalty for refusing to get coverage, the Obama administration argued that it falls squarely within the authority of Congress to levy taxes.

But they keep telling us it's not a tax.

[wny]

"Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare"

They can't be thta stupid. If I'm not buying insurance, then there's no "commerce". And if I am buying insurance, that would be "commerce", but I'm prohibited by law from buying it a in a state I don't live in. So that wouldn't be "interstate commerce".

ANd if Congress is to provide the general welfare, whwre's my food? and clothes? etc..

[Man50D]

The people are the government, not the White House, not Congress and not SCOTUS. They operate only at the consent of the governed. The governed are saying they will not accept Obamacare that defies the will of the people.

[Tarpon]

Shall we be forced to buy a government motors clunker next?

And who says the federal reparations, known as health care rationing, is Constitutional.

I suspect the Obama regime is flatly wrong.

Point out which of the 19 things the government can do encompasses this abomination?

[freedumb2003]

“and to provide for the general welfare”

To liberals, that excerpt FROM THE PREAMBLE (which explains WHY the document exists), is the entirety of the Constitution of the United States. The rest, including the Bill Of Rights is so much “blah blah blah.”

[ColdOne]

As for the tax penalty for refusing to get coverage, the Obama administration argued that it falls squarely within the authority of Congress to levy taxes So now it is a tax?

[traditional1]

" regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare"

WRONG on its face....the words are "promote the general welfare", NOT "provide for the general welfare".

THESE are the people who think the Constitution PROVIDES FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, in the pic below....

Additionally, Congress has NO AUTHORITY TO FORCE PURCHASE OF ANYTHING, even under the over-used, and IMPROPERLY APPLIED Interstate Commerce Clause.

And, to quote the exact words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, verbatim:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Ethrane]

Since this is 'quoted', I'm going to assume it is verbatim:

"Congress determined that the health care system in the United States is in crisis, spawning public expense and private tragedy," said the government's brief. "After decades of failed attempts, Congress enacted comprehensive health care reform to deal with this overwhelming national problem. The minimum coverage provision is vital to that comprehensive scheme. Enjoining it would thwart this reform and re-ignite the crisis that the elected branches of government acted to forestall."

If this is the best the gov't. lawyers got, I want to be at the USSC for the hearing.

If the government doesn't like the expense, they shouldn't have gotten into the health care game in the first place...it is largely the government's interventions into what should be a 'private' market that escalated prices to begin with. And as far as 'private tragedy'? Is private tragedy now grounds to usurp the US Constitution?

The government screws up the system, then complains of national tragedy...lovely...and of course, they are just the idiots to solve the tragedy with...an abomination of a health care bill that is unconstitutional. This really should be a sitcom!

[PubliusMM]

“Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare...”

And, just as expected, the two foundational legal tenets on which they will rest their case are these...the most misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misconstrued notions in the history of the nation.

It’s time to take back the country. Starting with a proper interpretation of the founding documents is a good idea.

[ExTexasRedhead]

War declared against We The People and our Constitution. A first in American History conducted by an anti-American illegal and his cohorts in Congress.

[ExTexasRedhead]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=66235B7DDFED538C

[sergeantdave]

“Congress acted well within its power to ...provide for the general welfare, Justice Department lawyers argued...

Really? Where is “general welfare” defined?

Some people might think “general welfare” is two chickens in a pot, a Cadillac in the garage, Kobe steak on the dinner plate, or 10,000 rounds for your M-60.

Obuma’s people are low class ghetto morons. Give them a bottle of MD 20-20 and call it “general welfare.”

[wiggen]

“”Congress determined that the health care system in the United States is in crisis, spawning public expense and private tragedy,” said the government’s brief. “After decades of failed attempts, Congress enacted comprehensive health care reform to deal with this overwhelming national problem. The minimum coverage provision is vital to that comprehensive scheme. Enjoining it would thwart this reform and re-ignite the crisis that the elected branches of government acted to forestall.””
Is their argument then that they did,in their eyes,something ‘good’ for the people so legality be damned?
Why else insert the word tragedy, which is subjective,into what should should be an objective argument?

[tnlibertarian]

So once the forced purchase of insurance is found unconstitutional (and I pray it is, because otherwise, it’s gonna get ugly), can we use the precedent to opt out of the purchase of the government mandated retirement annuity called Social Security?