Gibbs talking out his rear end, or more likely parroting what his masters told him. At least he had the sense to confess he could not analyze the issue.
ping
Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle and the cow jumped over the moon,
the little dog laughed to see such craft and the dish ran away with the spoon.
It may require more than just states filing lawsuits against this communist takeover of America but we have been electing socialsists so long and putting our heads in the sand and the monsters are in control of the federal government and do what they want.
Stupid Americans voted the communist administration in and they love it.
I think people put to much stock in what Gibbs says most of the time anyway. Rather than saying he will have discuss issues with the president he ad libs to much.
Gibbs plays the buffoon again with these contradictions:
"I think there's pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this"
"Well, that's -- I think, again -- look, I'm not a lawyer, right,"
Gibbs, you *ss, you are the spokesperson for the administration of this POTUS who has based his whole agenda on ramming this unconstitutional piece of crap through Congress. We don't care what YOU don't know, what is the legal position of the hack lawyers in this administration regarding this question??!! MSM, you frauds. You cannot let Gibbs off with this lame and pathetic response.
But if the people are not willing to respond to tyranny with force and revolution, the Constitution and Declaration never meant a damn thing anyway.
“. Forcing Americans to buy a product they do not want is a tyrannical act beyond the constitutional authority of the president and Congress “
Isn’t this a definition of taxation to pay for (purchase) Federal Programs and ‘services’ beyond the scope of the intent of the Constitution??
This new outrage merely takes what has been done ‘wholesale’ and applies it on the ‘retail’ level....
The Constitution of the United States of America is a document written in such basic and clear language that the founding and foundation of the greatest nation in the history of the globe was put down on a SINGLE PIECE OF PARCHMENT.
The disgraceful current Congress of that nation took over 2000pages to lay out the method whereby a person “MAY” have a splinter removed from his behind, providing sanction be obtained from the FBOB (Federal Bureau of Behinds).
That same Congress does not know what it is the bill and has never read it, never will, and cannot understand what it will do to this nation, nor do most of them even care.
Gibbsy and the Administration will continue to yap about all of their Constitutional authority to mandate healthcare right up until the time that the Supreme Court finally shoots this down in flames.
Totalitarians and their mouthpieces don't have to be lawyers to FORCE their will on "free" citizens...but they can be. Identify the methods and machinations of totalitarians and their mouthpieces. Thanks Terry Jeffrey.
I would have said that if health insurance is for private use, then the purchase or lack thereof is a private decision. If it is for public use, then the compensation for our money that is taken for that public use must under the Constitution (back when that mattered) be just. How does one measure whether compensation is just? In the free market, back when freedom was in style in what used to be the United States, that was determined when the buyer and the seller mutually agreed on a deal in which both benefited. In other words, if this was still a constitutional republic, we could not be forced to purchase health insurance for public use because the need to use force would be proof that we were not receiving just compensation for our private property.
Exactly let the new battle cry be “If you are in yer out”...you either voted for this post or you didn’t do EVERYTHING within your power to stop it..
Gee, THAT'S never happened before.
I’ve heard defenders of the mandate claim it is the same as a tax and Congress can levy as many taxes as it wants - and passes.
But it’s not an equally applied tax. People of a certain income level have to pay it, while other people who get health ins. from their employer or buy it themselves do not have to pay it.
I could see it as a property rights issue as well. Your money is your property and no one, not even the government, should be able to dictate how you spend it.
The Intolerable Acts are mounting up.
Wickard v. Filburn
Think the Roberts court would have the balls to overturn that one?
The logic of “well you did that and it was ok so this is just an extention of that...” is wearing very thin. In this case it was ‘well you pay into medicare and social security so this is no big deal...”
I am no lawyer nor do I play one on tv but it seems to me that that case is a major cause of our problems with expanding the role of the feds.
This case offers a great opportunity for the SCOTUS to deal with that issue by overturning its logic.
One can only hope.