Posted on 03/26/2011 1:50:23 AM PDT by Daisyjane69
The Constitution grants only to Congress the power to legislate. There is no greater threat to our delicate system of government than when federal courts allow unelected bureaucrats to make up their own laws. Yet last week, federal Judge Rosemary Collyer did just that.
The ruling has ominous implications for ObamaCare, enacted one year ago but not yet in full effect: This decision would allow the "health reform" law to become even more Orwellian than it already is, without any action from Congress.
In a case where I served as chief attorney for the plaintiffs, Judge Collyer allowed to stand three internal rules of the Social Security Administration that make receipt of Social Security retirement benefits contingent upon enrollment in Medicare. Plus, a person who withdraws from Medicare would not only have to give up Social Security retirement benefits, but repay all benefits previously received.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
more here:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/16084
http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/
It is actually worse than that. SCOTUS ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that we have no “right” to SS benefits and that Congress could repeal the Act altogether.
The SCOTUS makes no mention of what the consequences of repealing the Act might be. I think it would make all the protests in the Middle East look like a church social.
Sad, but true. That's why they are called, "benefits".
Eventually 'benefits' grow up to be entitlements in the minds of the recipients, but it has been proven way too many times before -- what the government bestows, the government can take away, and polticians' promises are worth the smoke they are written on.
A government that feels justified in taking one person's wealth to benefit another will have no reservations about taking anyone's wealth to benefit itself.
And that government can always justify to itself the withholding of what it has promised if it believes it has a need of its own.
The SCOTUS makes no mention of what the consequences of repealing the Act might be. I think it would make all the protests in the Middle East look like a church social.
Maybe even enough unrest to suspend elections . . . ?
And they may well do it like they did to the Military. For decades we were promised free healthcare for life for ourselves and our spouse, if we would give Uncle Sugar 20 years of our lives. Before I retired (with 24 years) in 1998, they had stopped providing the "entitlement" that we had fulfilled our part of the contract for.
Beware - as it has been said; "A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have".
It should read “A government powerful enough to give you everything you need inevitably will go bankrupt.” That’s the Catch-22. A government that powerful is powerless to fulfill its lavish promises. What was sold to citizens as a way to ensure their “security” in old age, against unexepected medical expenses, or anything else will instead turn out to be the least secure system possible: a house of cards that will collapse exactly when you were counting on it the most.
If only.
The deprived elderly will submit meekly. The working stiffs will keep working and paying their taxes, hoping they'll be eaten last, while being vampirized first.
Impersonal
You still pay impersonal
your taxes, don't impersonal
you?
One can only hope.
I think it is more than coincidence that there are uprising all over the ME and here at home the unions have gone on a tear with demonstrations and threats. There seems to be a general movement toward creating chaos in order to justify more government control. In the ME we are overthrowing tyrants but they were tyrants who kept a lid on on the Islamists. Now, under the guise of democracy, the Islamists will have the upper hand.
In this country the SEIU and the UAW are trying to expand union membership, which has been on decline for the last fifty years, through threats and government coercion.
Things seem to be coming to a boil everywhere.
“You still pay impersonal
your taxes, don’t impersonal
you?”
Actually, wife and I owe no federal or state income taxes. We are retired and don’t do many of the things we used to do?
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.