Illegal Health Reform
El Castor
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Saturday, August 22, 2009
President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate about his
plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such debate must include
the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal
government to adopt and implement the president's proposals. Consider
one element known as the "individual mandate," which would require
every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer
then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly
affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go
without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a
comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress
require every American to buy health insurance?
In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers
to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate
commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring
anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it."
more ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html
Werner
> "Illegal Health Reform
>...
>
> In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers
> to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate
> commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring
> anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it."
The Constitution has been disregarded a long time ago. Someone will
find a way to re-interprite the Constitution.
GLOBALIST
comes after you. It won't be Mr Rogers because he is in the
neighborhood. There will be no reason for anyone to not have some
method of payment. All you rich Republicans can still pay out of
pocket.
Ga...@comcast.net
"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:b8c28482-d599-492b...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
will someone find a way to get you to spell beyond that 4th grade level
gomer ??
I mean really there el shithead, you're not within a mile of re-interpret,
which leads me to
assume that you spend very little time reading, but a lot of time listening
to assholes
who form your opinions for you,
it's a lot less work isn't it ?, you lazy, fat ass, nascar watching reject
and retarded hillbilly
stupid people like you are too stupid to comprehend how stupid they are,
they have no intelligent frame of reference against which to
make any comparisons,
so pay attention to me, start by dropping and giving me 100 push ups, take
the whole week if you need
mg
First we had the Birthers and the Deathers. Republicans are pulling
out all stops in the propaganda war to make gullible people think
Democrats are doing something improper or even illegal. The reality,
however, is that legal experts have looked at this issue and believe
that the health reform law is constitutional. Here's a news clip:
"Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of
Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the
constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the
question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken
terribly seriously. "A basic principle of our constitutional system
for the last two centuries has been that the Supreme Court is the
ultimate authority on the Constitution, and the Constitution the court
now recognizes would permit Congress to adopt health care reform,"
Jost wrote.
Probably the most extensive, or at least heavily-footnoted, argument
in favor of the proposal's constitutionality comes from Mark Hall, a
law professor at Wake Forest University. In a 27-page paper prepared
for Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute, Hall acknowledges that
the federal government "has limited powers" and a law requiring
Americans to "transfer money to a private party for health or economic
purposes seems to be unprecedented" because laws tend to prohibit such
purchases rather than mandate them.
But after walking through the arguments, Hall concludes that there are
no legal objections likely to be sustained by the current Supreme
Court: "Either state or federal government may require either
individuals or employers to pay for health insurance. States have
inherent power to promote health and provide for the general welfare.
The federal government has authority under its power to regulate
interstate commerce... These major points of constitutional law appear
to be firmly established and are not likely to change based on the
near-term composition of the Court." [. . .]
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/21/taking_liberties/entry5328314.shtml
sr
"mg" <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:089ad2f5-93eb-46e6...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
El Castor
Interesting. Well, we shall see.