100 pages are enough! 2700pages of ObamaCare insures it overreaches

Coach is Right ^ | 3/31/2012 | Jerry Todd

[Oldpuppymax]

When Chief Justice Roberts asked if the defenders of Obamacare expected SCOTUS to review all 2,700 pages of this overreaching law, he posed a question that should have been asked 100 years ago during countless other deliberations. It made no more sense to the Court than it did to Charlie Rangel – or any well-intentioned lawmaker or bureaucrat.

Tea Partiers formed committees to take on 20 pages each among them. It wasn’t pretty! Ms. Nancy still claims her Congress took the Constitution into consideration.

Lesson 1: Always listen to your local Tea Partier!

Lawmakers have their overpaid fun for a while, but bureaucrats make careers out of draconian rules, harassment and fines to justify their existence.

If things are ever to turn around, lawmaking and bureaucracy must incorporate “Subsoil” – personal responsibility and “e pluribus unum” into the wonderful chaos of human interaction and proper government oversight. Then there is a chance to preserve the American Way of Life in our Constitutional Republic.

Five important questions should be consistently asked, truthfully answered and applied with integrity when writing legislation and running any resulting bureaucracy: Will this new law help or hurt initiative or personal responsibility?

Does the legislation or the bureaucracy it authorizes equally benefit the wider community?

Will this legislation put people or regions in a...

[loveliberty2]

Whether the Justices read and understand the so-called "health care" act is not nearly as dangerous to liberty as her lack of knowledge of the Constitution's limits on the role of government--Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary.

Is there not film of Sotomayor's Duke conference remark that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," and then adding, "I know I shouldn't have said that, but . . . ."?

If the Justices get "into the weeds" of the so-called "Affordable Health Care" legislation by such suppositions, ignorant or informed, then they are not adhering to their constitutional assignment as interpreters of the principles of the Constitution.

The Framers of America's Constitution would understand that such an act is not, and never was, about health care. It is about accumulations of power in the hands of arbitrary "rulers," including elected officials, bureaucrats and others whose role is to exert coercive power over the citizens.

Today's Justices should have understood that when the Trojan Horse called "health care reform" and various other appealing titles was introduced.

They are citizens, as well as Justices, and if they want future generations to honor them as advocates for liberty, their opinions must not insult the lofty aims of the Constitution's Preamble.

Hopefully, they will value the opinions of future generations more than accolades from a faction of so-called "progressives" who wish to separate America from its foundations in the enduring ideas of liberty, "changing" it back into Old World ideas from which it came.

[loveliberty2]

Ooops - "is not nearly as dangerous to liberty as their . . . ."

[Let_It_Be_So]

For every page of a law, several pages of regulations are written to implement the provisions of the law, and federal regulations carry the weight of law once they are promulgated... if on average there are 5 pages of regulations to implement every 1 page of legislation, the total pages of “law” amounts to over 12,000 pages.

Then, each state must write implementing state regulations that are based on the 12,000 pages of federal law/regulation, which would amount to another 36,000 pages if the state wrote 3 pages of state “policy” for each page of federal “policy”. This amounts conservatively to 48,000 pages in law, federal and state regulations that will result, or the equivalent of 96 500-page books.

If you read 1 500-page book a week, it would take you almost two years to finish all 96 volumes. This would accomplish the actual reading of the material, but much more would be required in order to actually have a good working knowledge and understanding of the material.

I kind of like the idea of putting all legislators who voted for this monstrosity under house arrest until they have both read and passed an exam on their proficiency and understanding of the material...and that until a majority of legislators have finished their house arrest, the law is put on immediate “hold”.

[NTHockey]

Congress is composed of functional illiterates who won’t admit their ignorance. That’s why they refuse to read legislation. Now the question becomes who is going to denounce them as functional illiterates.

[GeronL]

Newt said he likes about 300 pages of Obamacare.

[pallis]

If we want to elect Congressmen who will read all the legislation they vote on, we will have to redo the qualifications required to run for office. Anyone who has graduated from an Ivy league school, especially law school, is automatically disqualified. Anyone who has not spent at least five years working at a real job, or running a real business is disqualified. Anyone who has spent more than ten years holding elected offices is disqualified. Anyone who has never worked in anything but government and bureaucratic jobs is disqualified. If such candidates can’t be found by the parties, random drawings will be held, and candidates will be selected like jurors. There is room for fine tuning, etc, but this would be better than what we are doing.

[Mister Da]

I certainly don’t blame the justices for not wanting to read the bill, but if they are to rule on it, they should know what is in it.

The individual mandate seems to be drawing all the attention, but the bill likely contains many other unconstitutional provisions that will go unnoticed. If the court strikes down the mandate, but leaves the rest of the bill on the books, many of its illegal provisions will be law as approved by the court. All the kickbacks, payoffs, & cronyism will be the law of the land.

In 2700 pages, written by Socialists, most of it is probably unconstitutional. If the court refuses to read it, then it must not be worth reading, therefore it should be entirely rejected, not partially rejected.

All this may be moot, as the court may rule it constitutional, which would be the ultimate travesty, given they don’t know what the bill actually says. We call that “rubber stamping” where I come from.

[Mister Da]

Excellent words from you, but there are 4 “justices” whose ideology demands that they ignore the Constitution in favor of Socialist dogma. All they need is one weak kneed “moderate” justice & this tyranny is now both law & blueprint for further tyranny.

Socialists live in the here & now. Future generations are of no consequence to these people, nor is history, which repeatedly documents the failure of socialism. Their fantasy is that socialism is self sustaining, like windmills (haha), so future generations will continue to get free stuff, just like now. Socialists cannot conceive of the well running dry, no matter how much water they take out.