Twerking Vandals Wreak Havoc on a Small California Business
25 minutes ago
Thursday, March 25, 2010
A Question
Various folks (including many state AGs) are questioning the constitutionality of specific portions of the healthcare bill (such as the individual mandate), but since healthcare insurers are currently forbidden from selling across state lines and the commerce clause, even in it's recent (post 1936) extremely expansive interpretation by the courts, still only allows congress to regulate interstate commerce, what constitutional authority does congress have to regulate health insurance at all? I know silly things like the Constitution are looked upon as niggling annoyances by our 'progressive' brethren, but for those of us who still believe in limited government constrained by a written Constitution, I would like to know under what article or amendment of the Constitution congress finds the authority.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I am sure your question will be answered when the healthcare bill is upheld.
Bob,
I've more or less given up answering any of your comments or emails as I've found you to be largely ignorant of history, economics, science or statistics and argue from a position of attitude rather than facts, and when you are presented with facts too numerous for you to counter you respond with some flippant response like 'I guess we'll have to agree to disgree'. That said, I'll make a few more comments as an addendum to my orignal post to further outline my complete and utter disgust for this horrible bill passed under the most despicable congressional machinations despite being opposed by large majorities of the public, an unprecedented event for any bill of this scope in American history. Aside from bankrupting us (if you believe this bill will reduce the deficit, I will add delusional to your list of defects). If history is any guide, the actual cost of the bill will be 2-10x the estimated cost. The sham perpetrated by the CBO and congress to even get it to have a 10-yr revenue neutral aspect was only arrived at by counting 10 years of new taxes and 6 years of program costs (and will almost certainly be shown to be wildly underestimated).
You're respect for the Constitution goes no further than adding a meaningless tagline to the end of your emails about wrapping yourself in it. It may well be upheld but that is only because the SCOTUS have for years declined a clear reading of what the document actually says to advance government policies they approved of, which is how abominations such as McCain-Feingold (a clear violation of the 1st), Kelo vs New London (a clear violation of eminent domain protections), Wickard vs Filburn (which is where the court first stepped its toe into the massive commerce clause sea), etc..., but it remains to be seen whether the current court will uphold all or part of this legislation. If it does the result will be worse healthcare for most Americans, slightly better healthcare for a small minority, generally reduced growth, prosperity, and freedom. I'm glad you are so sanguine about the ability of government to provide superior, more efficient and more caring service despite the almost complete lack of evidence. And also so complacent about the increasing government control of every aspect of our lives. Before you so willingly accept this monster as some great good accomplishment you should seriously ask yourself the following questions:
1) Which current government run programs large or small do you consider models of efficiency and quality? (Post office, Amtrak, So-so security, medicare, FEMA, Veterans Administration, HUD...)
2) In what way shape or form can our government be considered 'limited' anymore. When Pelosi laughs at a reporter for asking what the Constitutional authority is for this bill, the utter contempt shown by this Congress, that the Speaker of the House finds a question of limits on congressional actions laughable should speak volumes.
In the end as we slowly devolve into some modern Euro-Socialist-Fascist hybrid and the restrictions placed on us by the government that supposedly serves at our will, you may finally come to your senses. But I doubt it, instead I suspect you will be like one of those true believers in the Soviet Union in the 30's who kept thinking as they were being beaten in the basements of Lubyanka prisons and they shipped off to prison camps in Siberia that it was all some horrible mistake, that Comrade Stalin couldn't possibly know.
As Franklin said, "Those who give up freedom for security will end up with neither".
Enjoy your brave new world Bob.
Wow.
Bob, we seem to agree. "Wow" is right.
John:
Brilliantly stated.
Post a Comment