Posted on 04/16/2010 11:42:54 PM PDT by legalwatch
Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new federal health care law are not likely to succeed, a former U.S. Senate Republican leader said.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalnewsline.com ...
Manditory purchase of Government Motor death traps will come first.
need to jettison this former senator and doctor out with all the other garbage coming from DC and the democratic state governors. another piece of trash. he wants some exposure, get his name up in lights, so he will say just about anything to have the spotlight on himself
**If not, it’s probably time for a Constitutional Convention.**
No way will I ever support a Constitutional Convention, unless...We the People chose the Delegates, and due to Conflict of Interest, NO SITTING politician can sit in the Convention. This Congress can not be trusted with such responsibility.
The Constitutional Convention once seated, determines its OWN Rules and agenda. NO WAY would I trust ANY of this bunch to get within 10 miles of the Constitution.
The Frist legacy? Take a health care plan for replacing Medicaid dreamed up by a DEM governor, Gore, and Hillary and sell the exact same program to PARTYBOT Kool Aide drinking Republicans as Medicare reform and man did they drink it by the pitchers full. His legacy? Proving he too could be as bad at the job of Senate Majority Leader as Trent Lott. Not a one of the names mentioned above would I ever consider giving a vote too for any office.
Kissing O’s a$$ in the hopes of an exemption to the ban on doctor owned hospitals?
Kissing O’s a$$ in exchange for some stim dollars for currently doctor owned hospitals?
Seems Frist was absent when TennCare FAILED.
Frist and Freddie kept making sure it stayed alive by securing federal funding for it. As close as Tenncare got to getting shut down was by Bredesen. I don’t like Bredesen but he did stop a majority of the nonsense that was going on and Taxquist let slide. I’d rather see it go back to Medicaid and Medicaids origional intent only though.
It wasn’t long ago that everyone on FR worshiped Frist and wouldn’t allow one word against his position on issues.
He’s probably right. I don’t see this getting overturned in the court although parts of it may, such as the requirement to purchase insurance.
You got that right. I just made a contribution to JD. I just can’t stand these RINO’s. They have no backbone.
“Therefore the US Congress can enact health care legislation because health care meets the definition of interstate commerce and the Congress can regulate by imposing a tax on those who don’t choose to participate by buying health insurance. Additionally, it is within the regulatory power of the congress to establish a government option to health care in order to provide for the general welfare of the citizens under Article II Section 8 of the constitution.”
If your assumption is correct, then the Supreme Court isn’t worth diddly squat and our Constitution isn’t worth the paper it wss written on in the eyes of the Supremes. Our constitutional gov’t is no more. Therefore, revolution may be in order, as we no longer will have a workable Constitution to defend.
“Winning elections by winning the battle of ideas is the way change happens in America. Win elections and change the direction of the country through legislation that is the American way.”
You must have forgotten about 1776. The American Revolution did happen in our country, didn’t it?
You mean Frist—family founders(hospital barrons) of the HCA Corp? I’ll bet you there were plenty of backroom deals made with the big O there.
He even wrote an editorial for US News & World Report supposedly in support of the law too. Never would have known it except for this article, as USNWR is another rag I don’t tend to read anymore.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Be specific. I.E. the word “regulate”.
The word welfare means “well being” in that phrase. And general well being is the precurser to the enumerated powers.
The word “regulate” means to “make regular.”
So in other words..they may not pass a bill that forces an individual to purchase a good to support another.
“Do you have any idea what you are talking about?”
Yap I do...
Just pointing out how I think the USSC will look at this. Not going on my personal view of how they should rule but rather how they are likely to rule based on past precedent and the current makeup of the court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.