Posted on 03/21/2010 11:38:37 AM PDT by Starman417
It's almost a laugh, watching desperate Dems scratch, claw and make sundry last minute back room deals to push O'health care over the top today. I say a laugh because the reality is this.... as of this AM, the verbal media reporting (that's a caveat emptor all on it's own...) is that Pelosi is likely to bypass using a Resolution for a rule change, and having the House Dems vote to accept the Senate version of HR 3590, passed Dec 24th. Following that, they vote on a reconciliation bill.
However that reconciliation bill has to also be accepted by the Senate, sans any changes, to be in force. Any changes mean it again runs back thru the House for another vote, and coming together on the changes.
This means that the only agreed to text via bills is the acceptance of the Senate amended House health care bill. No agreement on all these backroom deals makes a whit of difference as to what is law of the land if they aren't agreed to in both chambers.
Thus the uphill battle for Dem caucus consensus.
One of the biggest holdouts is Stupak and hold outs based on abortion language that is found in the Senate bill. Today, the Hill reports that Dem leadership negotiators are offering up an Obama Executive Order to "fix" Senate legislation by banning any federal funds for abortion. Real Clear Politics mentions the same.
WTF? First of all, no one has approached the WH about this Executive Order, via the news reports. Tho there is little doubt that if the promise of such from Obama may appease the Dem dissenters, he'd jump on it.
But since when can an Exective order have the statutory authority to override Congressional legislation? House Whip Eric Canton says it can't.
Read more at floppingaces.net...
The outcome of any vote by Congress on health care is irrelevant since Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care! Therefore the so called legislation on its face is Unconstitutional! The people are not bound to comply with an Unconstitutional act of Congress! This is a power regulated to the states per the 10th Amendment!
It is the reason why Idaho and Virginia have passed legislation blocking federal health care from being illegally imposed on the citizens of those states by reasserting their 10th Amendment rights and 34 other states considering similar legislation! This is the point people need to hammer home with their Congress critters!
I wish you would quit posting the constitutional thing and states rights. Do you really believe the courts are going to get involved? We are in for a long road. It will pass , it will hurt the economy and medicaid and social security and medicare and cost jobs plus increase taxes. The republicans will eventually get Congress back but President Obama will hold veto power until he gets his walking papers in the election. We are stuck with this until 2013.
i wonder what that sleazy Brian Baird got for his yes vote?!!!
Obama
___Takes Taxpayer Money
___To Buy Votes
___To pass legislation
___To gain power
___To secure legacy
___AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE????? IT IS A TOTAL ABUSE OF POWER!
The buying of votes and unequal application of rights (Medicare Advantage for Florida ONLY) should make this thing unconstitutional too.
This is a very interesting and detailed discussion of the issue and what is going to happen. Thank you for posting it.
you’re right - but i will take great delight seeing the Great One totally emasculated. he is nothing without his
useful idiots’ votes. yes, that vision is giving me great
satisfaction today. the upcoming emasculation of O.....
Will they? I highly doubt it. First, because most are in gerrymandered safe Dem districts. Second, because few voters will have ever heard of this issue, much less understand it. Third, because the Dems' core constituency of statist true believers won't give a rat's butt anyway.
And the Republicans willl not vote to disemploy the many thousands of new bureaucrats that will be hurriedly begin to be hired as soon as this thing passes.
We are watching the agonal death struggle of the Democrat Party.
While I concur with you as a lay person on constitutional principle.. and that is supported by at least 38 states introducing constitutional amendments INRE federal health mandates.... the proof in the puddling still falls before the courts.
With the winds of so many disgruntled states at their back, I find it hard to believe SCOTUS can side step a question they have concertedly avoided directly addressing as often as possible for years. But now, they should have a direct challenge based on this legislation.
The government mandate could, and should have been addressed after Clinton made Medicare enrollment mandatory in the early 90s, PLUS tied that mandate to receiving your social security benefits. But no one challenged that in the courts until last year in Hall v Sebelius, still being fought.
But the SCOTUS opinion will be purely dependent on the cogency of any arguments brought before them. In other words, if it’s a lousy presentation by equally lousy lawyers, it can be a limited and unrevealing opinion.
What will be interesting is if SCOTUS packages all into a group argument to address federal mandates to citizens in a more sweeping manner. In which case, this may be the only silver lining to this travesty... finally getting SCOTUS to define more clearly states rights, and Congressional overreach of constitutional powers. They are a weird bunch... if you don’t ask right, they don’t give you the direct answer.
In the meantime, at my age, I guess I’ll plan on being a social welfare golden age citizen (and an ornery one at that), plus buy risky ocean front property to live out the rest of my “non-productive” citizen years. Hang... if I’m not worthy of saving, and just worthy of medicating for treatment, I might as well have a great view on the way out.
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.