Is Forced Healthcare Purchasing Constitutional? Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

CNS News ^ | 10/23/09 | Matt Cover, Staff Writer

[Bokababe]

CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

[Bokababe]

Unbelievable arrogance!

Finally, a Pelosi aide stretches the Interstate Commerce Clause beyond all recognition to cover it.

[rod1]

That is scary.

[Jim Robinson]

Seriously unconstitutional!! Not to mention UNAMERICAN!!

[TurtleUp]

Is Pelosi suggesting that anything she wants to do is by definition constitutional because it’s what she wants ... or that constitutionality no longer matters because she and her minions have been ignoring the Constitution for decades?

[GregoryFul]

Hey, these full-of-them-selves, stinking traitors can do anything - ain’t no Constitution nomore.

[mtrott]

If they can compel you to buy health insurance, they can have taken complete control of your person, liberty is revoked, and we are back to tyranny. We already fought one revolution to remedy tyranny.

[ronnie raygun]

Kids, this is what happeneds when you eat lead paint

[Jim Robinson]

"stretches the Interstate Commerce Clause beyond all recognition to cover it."

Usurpers!! Useful idiots!! Throw the bums out!!

[muawiyah]

Just because I think it's Constitutional for me to walk into one of her restaurants and demand a $200 bottle of wine (free of charge) doesn't make it so.

Pelosi understands that.

On the other hand she has a nice job, plenty of visibility, and there are hundreds of lobbyists around town prepared to keep her satisfied!

[John Valentine]

It is simply a fact that there are MANY elected officials and legislators who see the Constitution as an artifact of history - an imprimatur of legitimacy, and only that. If there is any further significance, it is merely as something to get around, over, under or through. An obstacle, if you will.

But, even then, they don’t consider it a really serious one. Moreover, they don’t really think anyone else takes it seriously either. Thus Pelosi’s very genuine response to the question. She really thinks the question to be impertinent.

[Brugmansian]

Remember her comments on Kelo? She thought congress had to fund what the court found constitutional (taking of property to give to developers who would pay more in taxes) and then started to babble about the separation of church and state.

[Dem Guard]

She doesn’t have an answer to the question so what would you expect the B to say?

[The Antiyuppie]

If she ever cuts herself shaving, that skin will snap off of her skull like a balloon stretched on a bowling ball.

[goldstategop]

Nancy can't point to ONE provision in the Constitution where the government can force one to do anything. In fact, the Constitution forbids slavery. My idea of being an American isn't being the government's indentured servant.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[VR-21]

The Founders understood that government was a vicious and dangerous beast that should be kept in a cage. The cage they gave us was our Constitution. For the last century, statists have pointedly kept that knowledge from us, primarily through public education under their control. We've become so accustomed to government shoving thing things down and up our orifices that we don't even think about it anymore. Statists are the enemy of liberty, and I hope to live to see them hunted like animals. They are the embodiment of evil.

[goodnesswins]

EXACTLY....the DEMOCRAT Plantation owners have a plan for their SLAVES.....only some of us are onto them! Hopefully, others are learning...and fast!

[Jacquerie]

Spokesman Elshami (said) "Congress has broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production."

Scotus gutted the interstate commerce clause in 1947, Willard v. Filburn. When challenged it will find obummercare to be constitutional as well. When we finally slouch democratically into totalitarianism it will be a comfort to know that it was done in accordance with our Constitution.

[Bokababe]

"Usurpers!! Useful idiots!! Throw the bums out!!"

Nancy Pelosi is up for re-election next year and the Republican challenger is John Dennis., who spoke at the Walnut Creek Tea Party last week.

[Bokababe]

Big Ping!

[goldstategop]

Nancy Pelosi is safe. The district tilts so far left she'll never lose her seat.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[Bokababe]

"Nancy Pelosi is safe. The district tilts so far left she'll never lose her seat."

Not to a Beltway Republican. But a Liberty Republican has got a chance, especially if he has enough money to get his message across.

[bikerman]

We already fought one revolution to remedy tyranny.

Time to lock and load.

[beethovenfan]

I hope she finds out how “serious” it is in 2010. Let’s get rid of this botox bi*ch.

[Secret Agent Man]

For the whole series of Zero dollar bills, go here:

"Flickr Archive of Zero Bills"

[sickoflibs]

A short debate on FNC today on this. The short answer is that if it is constitutional to make a hospital give services for free to those with no insurance, then a mandated insurance must be too. And that was the basic argument.

[mtrott]

That does not exactly follow, because a hospital is not an individual citizen. Further, you have the ability to decide not to work at a hospital. The government is not taking control of individual citizens.

On the contrary, you cannot escape this individual mandate.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”That does not exactly follow, because a hospital is not an individual citizen. Further, you have the ability to decide not to work at a hospital. The government is not taking control of individual citizens. On the contrary, you cannot escape this individual mandate”

What??? Think about this a bit. It's like saying spending is constitutional but taxing isn't. You pay when you go to the hospital silly, they are forcing the hospital to charge you.

Here in MD they take all the uninsured costs and tax all the hospital bills in the state equally so no hospital benefits from having less uninsured in the area. So you are paying for the uninsured.

So a mandate to cover that freebee seems in order.

[D-fendr]

make a hospital give services for free to those with no insurance

Hospitals aren't allowed to charge patients unless they have insurance?

[Carry_Okie]

That does not exactly follow, because a hospital is not an individual citizen.

SCOTUS says they are equivalent.

[ExGeeEye]

Yes, Nancy, we are serious. Hoppe’s #9 Serious.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here | DONATE to FreeRepublic NOW!

[Kozak]

News flash from the Democratic Congressional Caucus

[TornadoAlley3]

If they can compel the people to buy health insurance because it is a right, and subsidize those who cannot afford that right, then when will they make all people own guns and help pay for the guns for those who cannot afford them.

[Lady Jag]

[Lady Jag]

[bamahead]

LOL :p

[Lady Jag]

  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Bokababe]

Any questions?

[runninglips]

I hope to live to see them hunted like animals.

Is this the new definition of participatory government? lol

[jjm2111]

drunk on power.

[Washi]

Yes, Nancy, the document that you swore to defend and protect is serious.