Attorney General of Florida wants constitional challenge to Obamacare
Middle Class Warrior
He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
health care is different.
See http://tinyurl.com/yfwnm7m
--
Rightardia: Progressive news with an international flavor. Visit us at http:
rightardia.blospot.com.
Lars Eighner
<4b3ff043$0$24742$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
the lovely and talented Middle Class Warrior
broadcast on alt.politics:
> Bill McCollum is also running for governor. Are you surprised?
> He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
> health care is different.
It is different.
If you don't want to enrich greed-based auto insurance companies, you can
simply not own or drive an earth-destroying vehicle. There is no right to
drive, and the priviledge can be made contingent on demonstrating finacial
responsibility.
Forcing people to support greed-based health insurance corporations is
corporatism --- which is fascism. It is not health care reform. It is how
corporations avoid health care reform. The government guarantees them
customers and 15% profits, and that is on the backs of working people. It
doesn't provide universal coverage and won't produce the savings that a
single-payer system would produce. Obama will sign anything with 'health
care' in the name. He doesn't mind if it attacks reproductive freedom, if
it enriches greed-based corportaions, if it puts more working people in
poverty. The stocks of greed-based health insurance corporations are
soaring because the market knows this will benefit the corporations. The
greed-based insurance corporations will be whining all the way to the bank.
Every day in every way it is clearer and clearer: Obama is Bush's third
term.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 32
769.3 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
fost...@gmail.com
> It is different.
>
> If you don't want to enrich greed-based auto insurance companies, you can
> simply not own or drive an earth-destroying vehicle. .
So if you chose to eat you are promoting "greedy-based" farmers??
If you eat you are supporting "greedy-based" supermarkets???
Shouldn't FOOD (the most basic thing we need) be a right??
Shouldn't your Fascist Utopian ideals guarantee food to everyone???
Shouldn't the government take over food?? The way you think they
should!!
We should all get stamps telling us how much and which foods we should
eat! Right Komrade???
Your arguments are so weak it is laughable! You are a child trying to
communicate in adult world!!
You are a MASSIVE fail!!!!
Middle Class Warrior
> In our last episode,
> <4b3ff043$0$24742$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> the lovely and talented Middle Class Warrior
> broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> Bill McCollum is also running for governor. Are you surprised?
>
>> He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
>> health care is different.
>
> It is different.
>
> If you don't want to enrich greed-based auto insurance companies, you can
> simply not own or drive an earth-destroying vehicle. There is no right to
> drive, and the priviledge can be made contingent on demonstrating finacial
> responsibility.
>
> Forcing people to support greed-based health insurance corporations is
> corporatism --- which is fascism. It is not health care reform. It is
> how
> corporations avoid health care reform. The government guarantees them
> customers and 15% profits, and that is on the backs of working people. It
> doesn't provide universal coverage and won't produce the savings that a
> single-payer system would produce. Obama will sign anything with 'health
> care' in the name. He doesn't mind if it attacks reproductive freedom, if
> it enriches greed-based corportaions, if it puts more working people in
> poverty. The stocks of greed-based health insurance corporations are
> soaring because the market knows this will benefit the corporations. The
> greed-based insurance corporations will be whining all the way to the
> bank.
>
> Every day in every way it is clearer and clearer: Obama is Bush's third
> term.
>
What we already have is corporatism. The Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
will take some of the the edge of it by eliminating pre-existing conditions
and providing a health care bill or rights.
It will be interesting to see what comes out reconciliation between the
House and Senate. At this point the bill needs to be passed. This will be a
starting point, not the finish line.
Dänk 1010011010
> Bill McCollum is also running for governor. Are you surprised?
>
> He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
> health care is different.
It is different. The 10th Amendment clarifies federal powers by
denying it powers not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution
or Amendments. Conversely, any powers not denied to the states by the
Constitution or Amendments are reserved to the states. Since the 10th
Amendment has never been repealed, it is still in effect.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the
power to operate a national health care system (or Social Security,
Medicare, public schools, and so on). However nothing in the same
Constitution prohibits states from operating such programs. States
have the power to require residents to purchase auto insurance, health
insurance, pension plans, etc., but the federal government does not.
Of course, Article V outlines the process by which the Constitution
may be amended to grant the federal government additional powers, but
for some reason proponents of Obamacare have not chosen to do so,
which is strange because something that supposedly enjoys such
widespread public support should have no problem being ratified as a
constitutional amendment.
Middle Class Warrior
> On Jan 2, 7:30 pm, Middle Class Warrior <rightar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill McCollum is also running for governor. Are you surprised?
>>
>> He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
>> health care is different.
>
> You have no clue about the difference between the US Constitution and
> the various constitutions of the states. Nowhere in the US Con. is
> there anything that permits required health insurance.
>
> Also, driving requires a license. Since it is a licensed activity, it
> gives the states the ability to put various requirements in place,
> including insurance.
>
> It takes a dumbass democrat leftist who wants to run everyone's life
> to not see the huge differences.
>
BS. The right tried the same arguments against Social Security and Medicare.
The US Constitution has a supremacy clause in it which means state's rights
lose most of the time when there is a conflict.
Driving is certainly a licensed activity, but the requirement for auto
insurance has little to do with licensing.
The Constitutional Basis for Medicare
Congress designed Medicare to promote the general welfare of the United
States. The program's financing mechanisms proceed under the taxing and
spending powers, together with the commerce clause. Although some groups
have challenged various features of the law, no litigant has challenged the
Constitutional basis of the act as a whole.
The Constitutional Basis for Social Security
In the case of Social Security, The Committee on Economic Security (CES)
used the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds
to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the programs in the
Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new
program.
Stop the left-right dumb-ass dance and try stating some facts.
>>
>> Seehttp://tinyurl.com/yfwnm7m
Middle Class Warrior
> On Jan 2, 6:30 pm, Middle Class Warrior <rightar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill McCollum is also running for governor. Are you surprised?
>>
>> He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
>> health care is different.
>
> It is different. The 10th Amendment clarifies federal powers by
> denying it powers not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution
> or Amendments. Conversely, any powers not denied to the states by the
> Constitution or Amendments are reserved to the states. Since the 10th
> Amendment has never been repealed, it is still in effect.
>
> Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the
> power to operate a national health care system (or Social Security,
> Medicare, public schools, and so on). However nothing in the same
> Constitution prohibits states from operating such programs. States
> have the power to require residents to purchase auto insurance, health
> insurance, pension plans, etc., but the federal government does not.
>
> Of course, Article V outlines the process by which the Constitution
> may be amended to grant the federal government additional powers, but
> for some reason proponents of Obamacare have not chosen to do so,
> which is strange because something that supposedly enjoys such
> widespread public support should have no problem being ratified as a
> constitutional amendment.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to change the US Constitution? It takes
years.
How do you think Bush created a military tribunal system, bugged the
Internet and kidnapped foreign nationals off of the streets of Europe? How
do you think Bush created a secret prisons in Europe and and another prison
in Guantanamo?
Where are any of the above authorized in the US Constitution?
Where is Federal government prohibited in the US Constitution from
operating Medicare or Social Security? You are ignoring the General welfare
clause in the preamble and the commerce clause.
It seems to me that Congress has the right to pass any law that provides for
the general welfare of Americans. It was impossible for the Founders to
write a perfect constitution. That is why the constitution provides for a
House, Senate and judiciary.
I don't buy the argument that the states have greater power than the federal
government regarding medical care. Many of the states have done a poor job
of regulating health care . In the South it is not uncommon for one health
care provider to own 75 per cent of more of the market.
Certainly, one the Affordable health care Act of 2009 passes, someone on the
right will launch a lawsuit of the constitutionality of certain provisions.
Questioning the constitutionality of the House or Senate to pass health care
legislation is likely a fool's errand.
It suggests to me that right is desperate for a way of stopping health care
reform.
Balthazar The Cajun
Your argument is nonsensical.
You say: " Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government
granted the
power to operate a national health care system . . . "
Then, you go on to say: " However nothing in the same
Constitution prohibits states from operating such programs. "
According to your reasoning, the states can institute slavery if they
desire, because, nothing in the Constitution gives the federal
government the right to regulate slavery while nothing in the
Constitution prohibits the states from instituting slavery.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the federal government from
operating a national health care system.
Your argument is not based on the Constitution. It is based on your
own narrow prejudices.
Dänk 1010011010
wrote:
> Your argument is nonsensical.
>
> You say: " Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government
> granted the
> power to operate a national health care system . . . "
>
> Then, you go on to say: " However nothing in the same
> Constitution prohibits states from operating such programs. "
>
> According to your reasoning, the states can institute slavery if they
> desire, because, nothing in the Constitution gives the federal
> government the right to regulate slavery while nothing in the
> Constitution prohibits the states from instituting slavery.
The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery.
> Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the federal government from
> operating a national health care system.
>
> Your argument is not based on the Constitution. It is based on your
> own narrow prejudices.
My argument is based on the text of the Constitution and its
Amendments. Maybe you should try reading them sometime before passing
yourself off as a legal scholar.
Morton Davis
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhk00a6...@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode,
> <4b3ff043$0$24742$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> the lovely and talented Middle Class Warrior
> broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> Bill McCollum is also running for governor. Are you surprised?
>
>> He thinks the states can force people to buy auto insurance, but federal
>> health care is different.
>
> It is different.
>
> If you don't want to enrich greed-based auto insurance companies, you can
> simply not own or drive an earth-destroying vehicle.
Bullshit. Cars do not destroy the earth.