Results 41 to 49 of 49
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
12-23-2009, 03:00 AM #41
Having also listened to CSPAN and the constitutionality of this bill per Max Backus(?) from Montana (poor folks) I felt in my gut that the brains that he was citing were flawed.
First thing that does not sound right and has not sounded right no matter who spews it, that health care is a RIGHT and as a RIGHT congress has authority to legislate. A RIGHT as enumerated in the Constitution seems to me, if you have the RIGHT to bear arms, does Congress have the right to dictate that an individual excersize that RIGHT? If Congress can dictate that an individual must participate in excersizing a RIGHT does it cease to be a RIGHT once force is exposed? A RIGHT seems to me you have the option to excersize or leave alone. To excersize or not to excersize seems to be an idividual's choice.
Can Congress force, dictate, or mandate that people buy guns? That RIGHT is left for the individual to decide to use or not. Therefore the statement that the left continues to try and burn into the minds of Americans seems to be disingenous, and decietful.
The Commerce Clause arguement seems flawed as well. If Congress claims that a product that contributes to the national economy, crosses through the borders of states and thus is interstate commerce, they have authority to regulate, but do they have the right to force a sale upon the people of a product just because it has passed through and is considered interstate commerce. The clause may be able to enable the transport of a product, but to force the sale upon the people or the states seems not quite right.
If Congress is right in their assumption, then they should be able to force sale upon the people of any product they wish or deem worthy. Bring in the clowns,....lobbyist!
-
12-23-2009, 10:19 AM #42AprilGuestHaving also listened to CSPAN and the constitutionality of this bill per Max Backus(?) from Montana (poor folks) I felt in my gut that the brains that he was citing were flawed.
-
12-23-2009, 10:50 AM #43
Good post roundabout!
But remember, your Rights are not enumerated or legislated from Congress or the Costitution. Your Rights are "protected by the Constitution. They are enumerated by your Creator. The fact that the Constitution and the accompanying Ammendments makes mention of some more specifically, was to leave no doubt as to there existance. But if you read the Constitution and the Ammendments, the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary are being told "keep your hands off" of these. Especially the first ten Ammendments, which are like the Ten Commandments which state, Thou shalt not, thou shalt not, thou shalt not, all the way down the list. So Congress isn't supposed to even legislate for or against them. They just are, and leave them alone. Don't touch.
As far as healthcare being a Right, that's a big wagon load of bullshine. Your physical and mental condition are your responsibility, and yours alone. What Congress wants is for people to become even more entitled under their programs. For every program you become dependent on, you become dependent on Congress, and they gain even more control over your everyday life. You are then forced to pay homage those who dictate to you your life. And when that happens, the Constitution is worthless since your life is dictated by an institution of man, not the institution of the Creator of the universe.
The question on the 2nd Ammendment is always a point of controvercy. Remember at one time, the Army of the Potomac was rather small in size. The individual states were required to muster up the militia, so in that respect, every ablebodied male between 16 and 45 was supposed to keep arms so they could serve in the defence of the state respectively, or the nation incase of a foreign invasion. Remember too, that people didn't have grocery market to hunt in for beef, pork, and poultry. They had to provide their own from the countryside. So you are correct in your deduction that the message the left tries to push is deceitful.
But remember, the Commerce Clause is very specific. .........regulate commerce "among" the states............
But Congress also likes to pull this one too, "if the Constitution doesn't disallow it, we can do it". That is what they are trying to pull here. What would happen to these clowns if they had to deal with likes of the Framers on healthcare. They would be laughed out of Congress.
-
12-23-2009, 12:36 PM #44
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Posts
- 4,714
What constitution?
Even If this health care bill passes (I have my doubts) there will be numerous Constitutional challenges.. They are creating rules out of thin air,and subverting the Constitution In a truly deplorable manner. Impeachment needs to be put on the table here..... TS
-
12-23-2009, 02:50 PM #45
Thank God for people like DeMint! The entire bill is so corrupt. Reid needs to be led away in shackels and taken to prison. Obama is punishing all Americans by forcing all of us into govenment depedency. He is taking away our jobs, bank accounts, homes, and now he wants to control our personal lives. IMO the president is an imposter and if he didnt have a democrat majority he would have been impeached by now.
RIP Butterbean! We miss you and hope you are well in heaven.-- Your ALIPAC friends
Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn
-
12-23-2009, 03:14 PM #46
If this is a matter for the Supreme Court, then I believe there is no doubt that the court would rule that the Senate wrongfully changed Senate rules without the requisite 2/3 majority. If it is not a matter for the court, then the Republicans will be entirely within their rights to nullify the related section of the bill without a super majority simply by using the Democrats logic. If this change is a "procedure" change and not a rules change, then the Republicans simply use a "procedure" change to nullify it. I think De Mint and company are simply documenting, formally, their objections, and laying the groundwork for deep-sixing this piece of garbage at the first opportunity. Related to this was the Senate Republicans' motion for a Senate vote on the Constitutionality of the bill, and I heard on Laura Ingraham's show this morning that the Attorney Generals of 11 states are analyzing the details of the bill on Constitutional grounds.
"We have met the enemy, and they is us." - POGO
-
12-23-2009, 03:41 PM #47AprilGuestI think De Mint and company are simply documenting, formally, their objections, and laying the groundwork for deep-sixing this piece of garbage at the first opportunity. Related to this was the Senate Republicans' motion for a Senate vote on the Constitutionality of the bill, and I heard on Laura Ingraham's show this morning that the Attorney Generals of 11 states are analyzing the details of the bill on Constitutional grounds.
-
12-23-2009, 04:19 PM #48
THey are voting on the Senate floor right now on several points of order that provisions in this bill are unconstitutional. So far, the Dems have all stuck together, but the one I'm watching is Hutchinson's amendemnt which comes up next that says this bill violates the 10th amendment, in that it takes the authority away from the states and gives that power to the federal government.
The Democrats will rue the day they snubbed the Constitution.RIP TinybobIdaho -- May God smile upon you in his domain forevermore.
Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
12-23-2009, 07:05 PM #49AprilGuestOriginally Posted by tinybobidaho
Arizona GOP pushing tough, new border policies, but faces strong...
05-05-2024, 10:24 AM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports