Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

washington examiner ^ | 4/1/10 | Byron York

[MamaTexan]

It wasn't just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn't just about bending the cost curve. It wasn't just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.

The Compact never gave government the right to our money, our agriculture, our education system, our industry, OR our ability to contract with each other. Nor does government possess a legitimate ability to give such power to itself.

Now, they've decided they can take what we earn and give it to whom they deem to be 'underpriviledged'.

I have to wonder exactly how unconstituional our government must be before the people decide to act.

-----

It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

[Liz]

......according to Senate Brain Trustee, Harry Reid, O/Care’s a jobs bill, an economic recovery bill, a deficit reduction bill, a student loan bill, an anti-discrimination bill, and a health bill, too...... that is to say, a timed release stealth bill meant to minimize cost, tax increases and its punitive nature (but only in the beginning)......

[Liz]

The Constitution is the limiting document upon the feds; the federal government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the federal servant cannot become greater than its master........the states.

.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments. Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............

============================================

Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member

The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

======================================

States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.

The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Related Stories:

Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment

Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution

[loveliberty2]

Baucus: "It is a shift, a leveling . . . ."

America's liberty and prosperity for over 200 years was based on another idea, for the earnings of hardworking citizens were protected from the coercive hand of government by a written Constitution which did not allow the Baucuses of the world such "taking" power. Hear Samuel Adams:

?Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams

And:

“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams

[loveliberty2]

Ooops! Substitute a “ mark for the ? in the first quotation, if copying.

[MrB]

Barry has said in the past that he prefers

“universal healthcare” and “free education”

instead of a reparations check. They affect the same groups as far as who gives and who gets,

but reparations would call the issue “done”, whereas government programs would be ongoing.

[MrB]

Satan hates the family, the REAL family - mother, father, children,

so it’s no surprise that his minions actively promote policies that destroy the family.

[loveliberty2]

With further reference to my Post #24, the Samuel Adams statement on "leveling":

His comment that redistribution "schemes" (his words) are as "arbitrary and despotic as those which vest all property in the crown," reminds us that the practical effect of the "health care 'scheme'" is to do exactly that--"vest. . . property in the crown" (by "crown," one must substitute, "the federal government"). The Baucus/Pelosi/Reid/Obama "scheme" first "takes," through various taxes, fees, penalties, etc., the earnings (property) of earning citizens. Those earnings become "vested" government funds.

This is another of those "schemes" which purport to do good, but, in the process, enslave both the earners and the recipients to those in power.

Ideas have consequences! (Weaver)

The Founders' ideas of liberty brought freedom and plenty and brought millions to America's shores to find opportunity and success. The counterfeit ideas of the Progressives who enslave us with their "leveling" schemes bring deficits, debt, and misery.

"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

Or:

"We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of 'a public debt being a public blessing,' and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423

[snowrip]

bttt

[EyeGuy]

“Wealth redistribution”?

Let’s save some syllables, and not lose a bit of accuracy in definition:

THEFT.

[Major Matt Mason]

At least we can now call the Dems "Socialists" and back it up with their own words.

[Nachum]

The question is will it have traction?

[Bigg Red]

WE KNEW IT, I’m just surprised they are admitting it so readily now!

^^^
Perhaps this is their plan to get us onboard. They think we’ll be in favor of a plan that purportedly lets the middle class get money from the upper class.

[mlocher]

Perhaps this is their plan to get us onboard. They think we’ll be in favor of a plan that purportedly lets the middle class get money from the upper class.

This is a desparate administration. They are trying every word known to mankind to make the Health Care Legislation stick.

You know the old adage. Enough monkeys with enough typwriters eventually will type up one of Shakespeare's classics.

[Lurker]

No sh**

L

[jtill]

“the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.”

And they don’t realize that this inequality is/was being caused by Welfare? Who wants to work when they can sit home on their butt and complain about not having as much money to throw around as the guy next door who works an 80 hour week?