Constitution? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Constitution!

[ViRedd]

A Minority View: Constitutional Contempt
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 11, 2009


At Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Oct. 29th press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Speaker Pelosi responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter said, "Yes, yes, I am." Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi's press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce," pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?

http://magazine.townhall.com/idiots
Speaker Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn't think that the cure to Congress' unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today's Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It's a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats.

In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure "To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes." The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game -- our Constitution.
If you asked the questions: Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter -- more government control over our lives. Are there any signs on the horizon that the direction is going to change? If we don't see any, we should not be surprised. After all, mankind's standard fare throughout his history, and in most places today, is arbitrary control and abuse by government.

 

[Green Cross]

A Minority View: Constitutional Contempt
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 11, 2009


At Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Oct. 29th press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Speaker Pelosi responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter said, "Yes, yes, I am." Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi's press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce," pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?


Speaker Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn't think that the cure to Congress' unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today's Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It's a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats.

In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure "To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes." The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game -- our Constitution.
If you asked the questions: Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter -- more government control over our lives. Are there any signs on the horizon that the direction is going to change? If we don't see any, we should not be surprised. After all, mankind's standard fare throughout his history, and in most places today, is arbitrary control and abuse by government.

Well said, but don't worry, the people have not lost control of the senate, and socialized health care will be shot down there.

House health care bill has nowhere to go in Senate

AP – President Barack Obama speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House about health care reform and Iraq's …





By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 8, 4:57 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.
Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people."
The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.
If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.
Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.
In Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers. Liberals may have to swallow hard and accept a deal without a public plan in order to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the "trigger" option.
That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position," Landrieu said last week. "It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim."
Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. "I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today," he said.
For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.
The Senate is not likely to jump ahead this week on health care. Reid will keep meeting with senators to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.
Toward the end of the week, the Congressional Budget Office may report back with a costs and coverage estimate on Reid's bill, which he assembled from legislation passed by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Finance Committee version does not include a government plan.
Reid has pledged to Obama that he will get the bill done by the end of the year and remains committed to doing that, according to a Senate leadership aide.
Both the House and Senate bills gradually would extend coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. The measures would bar insurers' practices such as charging more to those in poor health or denying them coverage altogether.
All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own.

To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don't take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, both bills would provide $5 billion in federal dollars to help get coverage for people with medical problems who are turned down by private insurers.
Both House and Senate would expand significantly the federal-state Medicaid health program for low-income people.
The majority of people with employer-provided health insurance would not see changes. The main beneficiaries would be some 30 million people who have no coverage at work or have to buy it on their own. The legislation would create a federally regulated marketplace where they could shop for coverage.
The are several major differences between the bills.
_The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not.
_The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate uses a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans.
_The House plan costs about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version is under $900 billion.
By defusing the abortion issue — at least for now — the House may have helped the long-term prospects for the bill. Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation. Lieberman appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Graham was CBS' "Face the Nation."

 

[ilkhan]

She gets the power through the Commurse clause.
The Sureme court will back that up.
Even though it is total BS.

However the senate will pass something, it will not be the current house bill.
Do not forget the states can nulify as well.
The States can use the 10th Ammendment to simply not go along.
The same way California and others ignore Federal Pot laws.

This will be fought.

 

[medicineman]

She gets the power through the Commurse clause.
The Sureme court will back that up.
Even though it is total BS.

However the senate will pass something, it will not be the current house bill.
Do not forget the states can nulify as well.
The States can use the 10th Ammendment to simply not go along.
The same way California and others ignore Federal Pot laws.

This will be fought.

What would be the advantage for states to refuse health care??
Going against health care, doesn't that seem immoral?

 

[ilkhan]

No fines, jail time and force seem immoral.
This is an abuse of federal power plain and simple.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

What would be the advantage for states to refuse health care??
Going against health care, doesn't that seem immoral?

Somebody didn't read the article that began this thread. It doesn't surprise me that you can't fathom why someone wouldn't trade their freedom for a few "free" visits to the family practitioner.

The point is, these fascist pigs don't care that they are passing unconstitutional legislation, despite the fact that the entire system is based on said document. They don't even bother to ammend it (because they know the citizens wouldnt stand for it) so they just ignore it. BOTH PARTIES. If that doesn't resonate with you, then SIG HEIL, hop in line and goose step on down for your free gov'ment cheese.

 

[medicineman]

No fines, jail time and force seem immoral.
This is an abuse of federal power plain and simple.

So how would we pay for health care? Just like mandatory car insurance, they need to include everyone to pay for it. Yes the youth will have to pay for all the old fucks, like me, but their time will come, and what if they get in a car accident, or contract some debilitating disease like the dreaded cancer. Payment will and should be based on income. The more you make the more you pay. If you are broke, health care will be provided. It will relieve all the emergency rooms by allowing patients to be seen at a clinic. I have issues with this plan also. If they were serious about cutting costs and covering everyone, they would go single payer, but the insurance thieves have a lock on the congress, fuck the people, just like always.

 

[doc111]

What would be the advantage for states to refuse health care??
Going against health care, doesn't that seem immoral?

On the surface it does seem immoral but since when do libs care about morality. Oh I see, when it suits their agenda.

 

[Hayduke]

So how would we pay for health care? Just like mandatory car insurance, they need to include everyone to pay for it. Yes the youth will have to pay for all the old fucks, like me, but their time will come, and what if they get in a car accident, or contract some debilitating disease like the dreaded cancer. Payment will and should be based on income. The more you make the more you pay. If you are broke, health care will be provided. It will relieve all the emergency rooms by allowing patients to be seen at a clinic. I have issues with this plan also. If they were serious about cutting costs and covering everyone, they would go single payer, but the insurance thieves have a lock on the congress, fuck the people, just like always.

Pretty much.

 

[stalebiscuit]

im still trying to figure out why they pushed this healthcare bill right now when A) no way we can pay for it. B) there are more important things going on. c) roughly half of america is against it

its going to go the way of the 1993 UHC bill hilary clinton endorsed..............hopefully

 

[doc111]

im still trying to figure out why they pushed this healthcare bill right now when A) no way we can pay for it. B) there are more important things going on. c) roughly half of america is against it

its going to go the way of the 1993 UHC bill hilary clinton endorsed..............hopefully

It's economic suicide to impose a large tax on people during a recession. If this passes it's going to prolong the recession or worse.....send us over the edge in the proverbial abyss.

 

[ViRedd]

Did anyone watch Judge Napolatano on Beck's show last night? He was awesome in his stance on constitutional law and states rights. He even talked about a national tax revolt to starve the federal government.

For those who would automatically write the judge off because he appears on FOX, here some interesting videos from the Judge's site. The first one is his stance on our favorite herb:

http://freedomwatchonfox.com/2009/11/09/11092009-freedom-watch-54-w-aaron-houston-jake-towne-noah-shachtman/10865/comment-page-1/#comment-102936

 

[stalebiscuit]

It's economic suicide to impose a large tax on people during a recession. If this passes it's going to prolong the recession or worse.....send us over the edge in the proverbial abyss.

one of the reasons im against it

as a staunch supporter of capitalism and the ability to have a choice, i say fuck the government and fuck the insurance agencies and fuck the hospitals for charging way to much

im becoming a huge fan of doc-in-the-box operations

 

[stalebiscuit]

Did anyone watch Judge Napolatano on Beck's show last night? He was awesome in his stance on constitutional law and states rights. He even talked about a national tax revolt to starve the federal government.

For those who would automatically write the judge off because he appears on FOX, here some interesting videos from the Judge's site. The first one is his stance on our favorite herb:

http://freedomwatchonfox.com/2009/11/09/11092009-freedom-watch-54-w-aaron-houston-jake-towne-noah-shachtman/10865/comment-page-1/#comment-102936

ive seen his interviews a few times, smart guy

he might lean a little right but he knows his law and is very impartial for the most part. if he has personal opinions on the subject he kinda keeps them to himself (he sounds like a text book half the time)

 

[medicineman]

ive seen his interviews a few times, smart guy

he might lean a little right but he knows his law and is very impartial for the most part. if he has personal opinions on the subject he kinda keeps them to himself (he sounds like a text book half the time)

He is definently tilted towards the right, no bull.

 

[doc111]

one of the reasons im against it

as a staunch supporter of capitalism and the ability to have a choice, i say fuck the government and fuck the insurance agencies and fuck the hospitals for charging way to much

im becoming a huge fan of doc-in-the-box operations

If people would learn the difference between a real medical emergency and a blister on their big toe I agree that McClinics are a great way to keep costs down and reduce the workload on our emergency rooms since 80% of the shit they see is non-emergency b.s.

 

[Iron Lion Zion]

Yes the youth will have to pay for all the old fucks, like me, but their time will come

Can I just ask why I should have to pay for you?
Don't get me wrong, I would gladly assist the people I know with anything they want because I know them and it is my choice, but why should I help you, when for all I know you could be lazy, stupid, irresponsible, and any other negative adjective you could assign someone or simply a person who I hate (Please don't think I am calling you any of these things, because I am not, just simply making a point). Why should I help you, when for all I know you could be everything I despise?

Again, please do not think I am insulting you, I just wanted to see how me helping someone I don't know is justifiable?

 

[stalebiscuit]

He is definently tilted towards the right, no bull.

maybe, but all the interviews i have sene him in he remains impartial

which is why i dont have a problem with most liberal judges, so long as they dont interject their own personal views and agenda. the law is the law

 

[stalebiscuit]

If people would learn the difference between a real medical emergency and a blister on their big toe I agree that McClinics are a great way to keep costs down and reduce the workload on our emergency rooms since 80% of the shit they see is non-emergency b.s.

well, illegal immigrants for example

they go up to grady (the failing and broke emergency hospital in atlanta) on a sunday night as a family for a check up every now and then. of course they never have to pay.

just one example of mis-management and abuse of our current medical system

 

[Hayduke]

Can I just ask why I should have to pay for you?
Don't get me wrong, I would gladly assist the people I know with anything they want because I know them and it is my choice, but why should I help you, when for all I know you could be lazy, stupid, irresponsible, and any other negative adjective you could assign someone or simply a person who I hate (Please don't think I am calling you any of these things, because I am not, just simply making a point). Why should I help you, when for all I know you could be everything I despise?

Again, please do not think I am insulting you, I just wanted to see how me helping someone I don't know is justifiable?

The same could be said about grandma's social security check she got for 29 years....Or....for war...why should I pay for you to kill someone you don't like...I mean sure maybe I wouldn't mind paying to kill some people I have a beef with...

Socialism/Patriotism...depends on who is spending the money.