How would this be any different than the requirement that a person have car insurance? It has been explained to me that you are not required to carry car insurance, you are only required if you want to be issued a registration for your car. In a similar manner, couldn't the Federal government simply tweak the legislation to read that you don't have to have health insurance but that you can't see a doctor unless you have it. Would that not meet the perverted Supreme Court interpretation of Interstate Commerce? In my opinion, the Supreme Court has already perverted our forefathers intent to the point that the original document is permanently irretrievable. I fear our only remaining choices are to go quietly into that good night of socialism or form a new nation, just as our founding fathers suggested: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Typical Dumb-o-crat response: ignore the question, profer only misdirection, or deny.

More to the point of the article, the Constitution was NOT written for lawyers - it was written for the people. That's why you don't need a law degree to understand phrases like: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" or "congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed".

The only way for someone to subvert the Constitution is to force the interpretation of its words. Kinda like, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is..."

David W.

Regarding the "requirement of car insurance" as far as I know that is a requirement of the state you live and/or operate a vehicle in. Not a function of the Federal government.

That's how I am seeing it.. and I am not a lawyer either...

03/24/10

There is no display of intestinal fortitude by any

HONEST man or woman of today.The fifty six founders

who formed the experiment of AMERICA are forever

gone.The LEADER we have now, Said on his APOLOGETIC

world tour we are no longer a CHRISTIAN NATION.In

my opinion,A CHRISTIAN NATION can be reborn.

There is a process by which this can be handled. First, I am not surprised that our elected representatives could not articulate one simple point: if the House is to modify the Senate version of the bill by passing laws to amend it, the Senate (who likes and wrote the passed Law) must also pass the bill to change the Law. Anyone see a roadblock with this?

As for the bill, the States are on the right track. But they need U.S. Constitution, Article V. "...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;..."

To Davids W.: Apples and oranges comparing it to car insurance. The state does not care if I wrap my car around a tree thus the state does not require me to buy collision insurance. I only am required to buy liability which protects the other person and property I happen to run in to.

Collision will be required by the entity that lends me the money to buy my car. Once I pay that entity back the money it so kindly lent me that entity no longer cares if I wrap my car around a tree thus I can drop the collision if I want.

I can also choose not to own a car and thus do not have to buy car insurance.

Lastly it is the state that requires me to buy the liability insurance not the Federal government. Perfectly proper since it's not specifically delegated to the Federal government it falls to the states or to the people.

Well said KN. Kudos. Why can't the Federal Government just get out of my life? Go play war some where and focus on protecting the people. Do not force us to to swallow congressional garbage. My life and liberty are at stake here. Almighty God, Please have mercy on all the people of the United States by allowing the Obamacare legislation to be unconstitutional. Amen.

The fact of the matter is the individual states do have the power to mandate healthcare. This logic explains the power of states to force people to have car insurance. The Federal Government is not allowed to use powers not given to them, but the States are allowed to use these powers. These powers are available to insure the power of States over the Federal Government. As historian Thomas Woods points out, States are actually allowed to nullify any Federal Legislation seen as hindering their individual infrastructure. In terms of the Healthcare Bill, even if the Government wanted to use the Interstate Commerce Act, what interstate commerce is being undertaken? How could Federal Government created healthcare programs be seen as commerce between individual states? If the healthcare bill does not allow people to buy insurance across borders,interstate commerce does not exist, therefore nullification of this "Law" can be in order. The protection of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land can only be upheld through states making it the Supreme Law of the land. If the Federal Government wants to exceed powers given to it, the States need to employ the powers given to them.

You should call yourselves Tearrorist for threatening the Reps because they voted for something that was more right than wrong.

This is no different than making people get auto insurance so they can drive. It will protect more people and cost slightly less than you think. Young people will be able to stay on their parants insurance which will save those people alot because they were not working while going to college and private insurance was out of reach for these people.

That is just 1 example of the good this bill will do.

fearmongering and naysaying will not derail the government. The attempt to create anarchy through dissention and illtempered refusal to cooperate will not succeed. Moderation will win out over extremists.

The average American is alot dumber than the fore fathersso there is no chance that the average american could understand everything associated with government. If they could, they would be in Washington instead of someone else.

Someone calling them Dumb-o-crats while misspelling prefer is just 1 example.

The fore fathers were dumb enough to leave a document completely filled with phrases that people can MISinterpret how they like.

People who quote those phrases always leave out the substance which limits what they throw out.

Not everything is personal property and there are subsequent definitions in the laws that further detail descriptions. Money is currency, not personal property. You have to convert the currency, which is tender for all debts. Debts are not personal property.

I too have the right to bear arms which means I can bear a rifle in your face and if I perceive you stepping on my liberty, I can pull the trigger.

Of course there are subsequent laws that detail that act as an act of murder which is not detailed in the constitution.

So I say stop talking above your intellect and let people who you elect run things like they are suppose to. If you do not like what they are doing, then have a one on one conversation with them instead of trying to derail the whole system with hostile and antisocial acts.

Speaking from my experience as a former law enforcement officer who was charged with enforcing mandatory liability insurance laws for drivers/car owners - KN has it precisely right. To use it as a comparison arugment (which I've heard many progressives do) in support of the individual mandate in this healthcare legislation is entirely inappropriate and quickly falls apart upon examination.

Driving a motor vehicle on the public highways is a priviledge, not a right. Now I've had quite a number of people really get their hackles up when I say this and argue that it is a "right." They argue the government can't restrict you from traveling wherever you want. Well, it is true that the government can't restrict you from traveling the public highways and byways... that is via your own power (legs). But if you intend to operate a piece of machinery such as a car, pick-up, truck, bus, etc., upon the public highways where others are also present, which has the capability of causing death, serious bodily harm or property damage if operated improperly or recklessly - then yes, the government has not only the authority to regulate you, but a duty to. I won't rehash the difference between collision and liability insurance or state vs. federal authority aspects of the constitution since KN and others have aptly covered those points.

What I will reiterate is that any of us can choose not to drive or own a car, choosing instead to either walk, bicycle, or avail ourselves of other non-regulated transportation methods, and thereby exempt ourselves from state liability insurance mandates for driving. But the health insurance mandate imposed on us by the Federal Government, forces us to buy an insurance product/service simply on condition of being living, breathing, citizens of the United States of America. And there is no method of exemption here short of death or emigration.

There is no getting around the fact that this is an unprecedented intrusion upon individual liberty by the government of the United States, and is in no way akin to the Civil Rights Acts, as implied by the Statists who passed this... thing. No, it is quite the opposite and a giant step backwards to the very chains of governmental omnipotence and diktats our fore-fathers fought to throw off. This is an Intolerable Act and must not stand.

"It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government." ~ James Madison 1788, Federalist No. 49.

"It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." ~ John Dingle (D-MI) March 22nd, 2010 (who by the way has seen fit to exmempt himself from the heatlhcare diktats he voted for).

God Save the Republic.

As for the person who commented about car insurance and the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not mandate car insurance, each individual state has it's own rules and regulations pertaining to car insurance. I have resided in 5 different states and each required me to carry different types of coverage, amounts to be paid out incase of injury and so on. As for our current healthcare, it steps all over our 10th amendment! Did you know that CNN reported that Obama and the democrat's will be holding meetings to iron out the final touches.Please note that republican's are not invited to attend, the meetings will be held privately, no live TV feed, only results shown on CSPAN. Hmmm, sounds to me like " the current democratic party" isn't as honest as they claimed to be whem Obama was elected. Every promise he made in his campaign speeches was a complete LIE!!! He should be happy that his nose doesn't grow for every lie he has told, because he would be a coast to coast president :) How can you tell a democrat is lying??? their lips are moving.

Anyone who thinks the government is really concerned about health care needs to think again. It's merely the broadest, easiest way for them to gain more control. They will have even greater access to our personal & financial information and take decision making out of our hands. This is Big Brother on steroids. If they're GIVING it to us, then why not leave us the choice of accepting or rejecting the plan? And why fine us for not taking it, if it's a gift?

And while we're all preoccupied with health care, what other things are they doing behind our backs that they're not telling us?

EF & DS,

Well thought out arguments for not relying on any government to provide for the citizens. Both of you qualify for the Neville Chamberlain award for moderation and blindly complying to unlawful acts.

It is obvious that neither of you have ever read the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers wrote that document in reasonably broad enough terms to allow for the growth of this Nation. The growth of this Nation was given to the People and not to the Federal Government. Only those acts and functions specifically given to the Federal Government are allowed to that end. Everything else was reserved for the States and the people of said states.

All of you liberals and moderation practitioners point to the interstate commerce clause of the constitution as excuse enough to COERCE

Boy, I'm pretty sure DS is "One Of Those". It sounded to me like DS was suggesting that "Those in Wasington now, understand everything associated with the government." WOW, if only that were so. DS was so anxious to point out a spelling error of the word "prefer" but what about the syntax error when DS said "So I say stop talking above your intellect and let people who you elect run things like they are SUPPOSE (should be SUPPOSED) to. If you do not like what they are doing, then have a one on one conversation with them instead of trying to derail the whole system with hostile and antisocial acts."

I think it was Will Rogers that said "Seems like when them fellers get to Washington they forget who the hired hand is." I think what's getting a lot of Americans upset is that those "hired hands" in Washington are NOT doing what they were elected to do. They were elected to protect the constitution and not to look for ways to try to get around it.

Sorry about that; I hit the wrong key on the computer: To continue

COERCE the people to purchase health insurance from the government. That is not interstate commerce. Interstate commerce relates to anyone, any company or anything that is bought and/or sold by crossing existing state borders. If I drive to any other state in this Union (except Hawaii), I am NOT engaging in Interstate Commerce. I am engaging in my freedom of movement thoughout this country. If I purchase items in any of these states, I am not engaging in interstate commerce. My transactions are not intended to move any item from one state to another for the purpose of re-sale. My purchase is intended for personal use only.

That is why the Supreme Court has been wrong in 99.9% of its decisions as they relate to Interstate Commerce.

Article I, Section VIII states the following: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" and that is all the Constitution specifically states regarding interstate commerce. PERIOD.

DS, as for allowing the people that are elected to run things, I DID NOT VOTE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; therefore I can and will continue to criticize any and all of his pathetic attempts to ruin this Nation.

EF, 99.9% of all existing health insurance policies allow the parents of a college student to keep them on the parent's plan under they graduate or reach age 23 or 25 (depending on the policy). The new bill goes to age twenty-six. BIG WHOOP!!! That is a nothing improvement.

DS & EF, please go back to Berkely, Harvard, UCLA or any other liberal institution that doesn't give a damn about America. At least there, no one will be able to discern your mediocrity.

Duke

Again, I apologize for not completing this post in one message.

As for being forced to buy medical care, we are already forced to join a retirement plan. Don't pay your FICA tax and see what happens. Maybe we can get social security thrown out also. I would appreciate all the money that was stolen from me returned with a suitable rate of interest. Remember it was Otto Bismark who came up with the original idea for social security and Adolph who refined it. FDR and BHO fit right in with these two great humanitarians.

The requirement to purchase car insurance is mandated at the state level, not the federal level.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

I agree with Terence and James. I am a former law enforcement officer of 24 plus years. I also served my country in the USMC. The federal government has exceeded its authority. It will now continue to expand on that breach in other legislation, if "we, the people" do not bring this progressive push to a stand still and retake our Constitutional ground. It is that plain and simple.

EE:

I am a conservative in the real sense. The Federal government has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. It cannot impose its will on the states. The founding fathers are dead yes but their rules have been followed for many years and have as yet been overturned. Obama is a smart cookie but he and his cronies need to protect the people that put them there instead of trying to lord over them! If the Supreme Court follow the law of the land then this health care reform bill will be overturned no matter if it is good or bad!