Posted on 03/24/2010 8:32:12 PM PDT by Hostage
The top prosecutors in Washington and 12 other states filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the landmark health-care legislation minutes after President Obama signed it into law.
In a suit filed in federal court in Tallahassee, Fla., the attorneys general claimed the requirement for all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional — the equivalent of going a step beyond simply regulating automobiles to requiring people to buy a car.
"This bipartisan effort by attorneys general around the country should put the federal government on notice that we will not tolerate the constitutional rights of our citizens and the sovereignty of our states to be trampled on," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said. "I will pursue this litigation to the highest court, if necessary."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
That whining Weiner(D-NY) kept telling O'Reilly this evening it was a tax NOT a penalty or fee for non compliance. Maybe he didn't get the memo?
Your post is tremendous, informative and insightful. Thank you.
It seems as far as the Harvard professor’s comments on the commerce clause, everything hinges on your your description of the distinction between regulating healthcare and purchasing health insurance.
What is frightening in the Harvard’s professor’s comments is that he is from Harvard and possibly does not see the distinction. I would rather think he knows the distinction but is partisan and chooses to obscure it.
This entire law amounts to a forced, uncompensated taking of private property.
What is the property?
- The right to manage our personal finances, which is reduced by government forcing us to purchase health insurance.
- The right to personally choose health providers and to contract for same.
People laughed when the idea of death panels was brought up. But in fact, this law requires us to delegate life-and-death decisions to nameless, faceless bureaucrats.
The potential for political abuse of a government-run health care system is enormous. Records can be stolen and disclosed; treatment can be denied to non-compliant persons (i.e., conservatives).
En-garde, socialist / communist bastards.
What choice? We are being forced to choose. Using Levinsons logic the Feds can force us to buy anything as long as there is a fine for refusal to purchase? I dont think so!
Apart from the violation of Article I, Section 8, it also violates the 4th, 5th (Takings Clause), 10th, and 13th Amendment.
Some bill there, huh?
I am glad it helped.
The professor does know the difference, he is just firmly convinced that the constitution is a living breathing document and that we shouldn’t be controlled by the dead head of others. He is likely convinced of his superiority and that he and the rest of the elite should rule over us, on the other hand he might be a true believer and honestly think that a strictly construed constitution cannot serve society. If I had to guess, I would say that he is the former.
Some of these articles will cite a Georgetown professor named Randy Barnett. He argued for limitations on the federal government in Raich v. Gonzales and lost. As different commerce clause questions have come up over the past couple of years, he usually gives a brutally accurate description of where the law is and how the court will answer.
Another interesting article is by Richard Epstein: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610040924143158.html
What constitution? It's dead, Jim.
Too many people did too little for too long and here we are. Enjoy your fancy cars, boats and widescreens while you can, because you sure won't keep them for long now.
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
Or choose not to.
Congress cannot pass a law that mandates you divulge your health information to them.
Likewise, they cannot pass a law that mandates you divulge your health info to anybody else, including some insurance company they order you to buy insurance from.
oh yeah, i heard that old story before- just like the bc in having standing
Anyone that believes that the SC will hear, much less overthrown,is Stupak. They are NOT going to overturn legislation; nor will they go against precedent and nor will they stand up for the Constitution.
PUBs will NOT do anything to overturn this; nor will they defund and nor will they stand up for the Constitution.
Both parties are about POWER and CONTROL. We, the people are good for two things: paying taxes and re-electing the same people over and over again. Remove one of the two and we loose our usefulness.
Soapbox, ballot box, jury box,.......
Ok, if you arrived at that point and are still hoping for an alternative to stand up, then go to the threads on passing amendments via constitutional convention.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823341/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478340/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2477434/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478532/posts
And please don’t opine to me and others we are dreaming. I’ve already received every conceivable anti-response.
And if you don’t like it, then pay all the taxes they heave upon you, or drop out and be a burden to your fellows, or take mind altering drugs and watch reality shows, or......
I REFUSE to pay any money to support child murder. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. I have told my Senator (not the appointed one)that I refuse and he has my name and address if he wants to arrest me.
Save your anger for someone who deserves it. I have no faith in government entities whose sole mission is to control what I do, think or say. I was born free and I’ll die that way. My knee bends to no Master save He who created me.
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.