She needs to be manned by patriots
Posted on 11/03/2009 3:37:00 AM PST by Man50D
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that he does not know if White House lawyers have reviewed whether it is constitutional for the federal government to order individuals to buy health insurance and said that the White House is not seriously considering the concerns of people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) who believe the mandate is not constitutionally justified.
This was the second time in two weeks that Gibbs had dismissed concerns that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force individuals to purchase items the government wants them to purchase.
Hatch told CNSNews.com last week that forcing people to buy health insurance cannot be justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
“But here would be the first time where our government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want,” Hatch told CNSNews.com. “And, you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound. Now, there may be some gimmicky way that they can do this, but I can’t think of a gimmicky way that would be constitutionally justified.”
Gibbs was asked by a reporter on Monday: “Have White House lawyers looked at this issue? Has this been examined in any way?”
Gibbs responded: “Not that I know of. I don’t think it has gotten to the point where anybody questions the legitimacy of it.”
The reporter followed up: “Well, Orrin Hatch questions the legitimacy of it.” Gibbs quipped, “Well, you should ask him.”
The reporter asked, “Do you not feel there is any concern at all about whether it is constitutional for Congress to impose a mandate?”
“No,” Gibbs said.
Achtung!
Because they don’t care.
unfortunately, due to idiot decisions by SCOTUS over the years, the Commerce Clause lets congress control almost everything. If I sell a hearing aid to myself, it’s considered interstate commerce. (Wickard v. Filburn). That’s why all of this 10th amendment stuff, although well intentioned, won’t work.
When we elect godless men and women, why should we be surprised when they spit on the oath made to God to uphold and defend the Constitution?
My question to Gibbs: “Then why not”? We are a nation of laws and the Constitution is the Law of the Land. So, “why not”?
Nope the only way to defeat this O'bama-nation is to try and change the control of one of the two branches (House or Senate) next year which may or any not be as difficult as thought even a couple of weeks ago and today's results in VA, NJ and upstate NY could be just the impetus we Conservatives need and can use to affect just such a major sweep next year.
Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but we've gotta start somewhere and without a belief system that we--as a grass root movement--can prevail(and I don't mean "Hopey-Changey") there is only despair and surrender, which I for one will never do.
There are going to be MILLIONS of people who will ignore this mandate and/or the fines associated with it. Not just as a protest in general, but because they are probably young, don’t need the insurance, and are not going to cough up their fun money for health insurance. The Government won’t have the resources to enforce this let alone defend the lawsuits from various organizations that will challenge it. This is a big joke!
She needs to be manned by patriots
Thank you for saying that!
Gibbs: “So we’re derelict in our Constitutional duty. Whatcha gonna do about it?”
Read Article IV, Section 4
Health Care won’t fly.
I do not think that the Marxists and Communists in our congress really care about the Constitution. There were no congressional hearings in connection with Obama's meeting the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen. I suspect that any number of laws on the books are questionable in this regard. We have been astray from our Constitution for any number of years IMO, especially when the Democrats are in control.
Congressional philosophy: We’ll pass it anyway and let the SC sort it out.
Happened with the Telecom act under Clinton.
Happened with Campaign Finance Reform.
Congress doesn’t seem to concern itself with the constutionality of the laws it passes.
He knows nothink.
Newsflash to Obama/Congress: Majority want does not override constitution. Period. Ever.
You know, as much as I (dare I say HATE) Obama and Rahm, Gibbs is one I want to see taken down a peg or two. His smarmy act got old on me about 8 months ago.
The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the “consumption” of wheat — not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court’s reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn
Until there are consequences and retribution against the criminals in DC acting against the constitution, they will continue stealing our freedom. It’s that simple. We are entering a period of anarchy where those most proficient with weapons will write the law. And it will change from day-to-day, or even hour by hour. The fact that conservatives respect the law will be both a blessing and a curse.
Except for this little ditty which has been expanded into the leviathan it is today: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Hatch is a grandstanding poseur. We have all been forced for years to buy gubmint unemployment insurance that we may or may not want. We have been forced to buy gubmint retirement insurance. Gubmint health care. It's all taken from people's paychecks before they even receive them. Or if you're self employed, you are compelled to send in the money quarterly. Hatch is a boob.
Of course you are right about Wickard. As you are probably aware, Wickard was recently used as the basis for the liberal majority opinion in Raich, which was joined by Justice Scalia. And many “conservatives” are perfectly OK with Raich, because it dealt with the devil’s weed. That’s how gubmint gets its power—by cleverly playing on the prejudices and tastes of the ignorant public.
Quite a few people at the time of the founding saw this stuff coming. But the big gubmint party—THE FEDERALISTS—won in the end, to our detriment.
“The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control…I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible. Certain it is, that in England, and in the several states, where we have been taught to believe the courts of law are put upon the most prudent establishment, they are on a very different footing. “
Antifederalist #78
“The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have showed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution; and that, not only according to the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it.”
Antifederalist #78
“[I]t is easy to see, that in their adjudication they may establish certain principles, which being received by the legislature will enlarge the sphere of their power beyond all bounds.”
Antifederalist #81
“They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one.”
Antifederalist #82
THANK YOU! 20 posts before someone finally brought up the real Constitutional crisis we have before us. FR is slipping!
With that elephant in the room, talk of unconstitutionality is just that...TALK.
I suspect that any number of laws on the books are questionable in this regard.
Yep! Seat belt laws, no smoking laws, water flow from my shower, car seats, infant shots and vaccinations, mandatory education, prayer or Christian displays in or around government property, light bulbs, toilet flushing, what we eat, bans on trans fat, murder up to and immediately following birth, murder of the disabled, direction of electrical outlets, electrical plugs, what type of vehicle you can drive and mandatory auto insurance -- just to name a few!
If they can mandate auto insurance why not health insurance?
Then they will have every right to tell you what you can eat, how much you must exercise, what activities in which you will be permitted to participate -- deeming some too dangerous, etc.
Oh Paige, that is sooooo yesterday! We no longer operate under Constitutional law. We now have Obamalaw!
I total agree with you!
Unfortunately our court system does NOT!!
The "Birthers" have experienced it multiple times the hard way in 2008/2009 by judicial cowardliness and technical attorney mumbo-jumbo tactics!!!
Sounds very much like the argument we heard last year:
It is not unconstitutional to run for the presidency, it is only unconstitutional to "serve" as president.
and then only if by someone who can show standing (you know that little bugaboo which has stifled every birther challenge to date) and they have been harmed,
Yes indeed...that entire "standing" issue has sunk all inquiries.
which is a long way off and by then who know what damage will have been done.
EXACTLY! None of the unconstitutional acts seem to ever be overturned, which is exactly why this obamacare debacle MUST be stopped now!
Of course they will. All they have to do is raise taxes. The government has all the resources it needs to do whatever they choose as long as there are those willing to turn over their hard earned money.
What about auto/motor vehicle insurance? I guess they can't force you to buy it, but they penalize you heavily (up to and including putting you in jail) if you drive and don't have it....
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the government’s scheme permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine to the government for being too productive.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.
This was a dramatic reversal of over 150 years of prior decisions (”precedent”) restricting the federal government’s power to regulate commerce, which previously had been limited to such areas as transportation across state boundaries on roads and rivers, actual movement of goods between states, and prohibition of punitive taxes imposed by a state on goods from another. (Wikipedia)
I’m NOT giving up. :)
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.