Posted on 03/27/2012 5:50:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
I would like them to rule that my mandate to participate in social security is unconstitutional too
I would gladly let them keep what they already have taken from me and opt out of receiving any ‘benefits’ if I could stop paying into it
The whole damned thing is Unconstitutional.
Plus they havent finished writing it yet. They are making up new rules as they go along.
It’s not, but they got at least 3 or 4 justices in their pocket.
Losing my freedom was not the change I hoped for.
Should be the topic of the day.
If the individual mandate is constitutional, there is literally nothing left of the constitution. The federal government could literally force citizens to spend a certain amount of annual income on virtually anything, like health foods or “green energy” products. Even though Justice Kagan might find those to be stupid laws, she’s virtually certain to agree they are permitted under the Commerce Clause.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Wickard v. Filburn and all of the other Commerce Clause distortions since then are blatantly unconstitutional. I think Justice Thomas is the only one to really get it. Regulating commerce between the states could not possibly mean the federal government has the right to force people to engage in commerce. That’s not regulation. That’s tyranny.
I read an article yesterday that said the justices have probably all already made up their mind how they are going to vote. These oral arguments are just for going through the process. I think its probably true. This is not rocket science. I’m looking for at least the individual mandate to be thrown out 5-4. They will probably leave the rest of it for congress to dismantle as they see fit.
Actually, Wickard did just that. By denying the right to produce food for private consumption, which is MORE essential than health care, Congress forced each and every individual to enter into a contract obtain food.
And they can change the amount of the penalty every year.
Whether we end up in living in a Communist thug state where the self appointed overseer class decides whether we get to see a doctor or not.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of mandatory healthcare. Doesn’t sound quite right.
This is why we lose arguments with liberals.
Healthcare has always been provided to Americans, regardless of ability to pay. Healthcare may indeed be codified in law as a right, but the right to health insurance has never been a right, let alone an obligation by virtue of citizenship.
We are already there ...
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
In Raich, SCOTUS ruled that activity which allegedly could reduce activity in illegal interstate commerce could be regulated to the point of - and here I $#!^ you not - an armed raid on a little old terminally ill lady's potted plants.
Given precedent cases, our only hope on this point is that the court decides that siding with the government would indeed give the feds unlimited powers - the complete opposite of what the Constitution embodies.
—Ultimately, the Justices will have to weigh compelling national interest against the potential for abuse of power.—
Interesting. I thought they were supposed to determine constitutionality.
If this is upheld, what is to stop the government from mandating that every family buy a Chevy Volt or equivalent. Or Maybe they mandate that each new house has to have a solar electric system.
Ah, the commerce clause otherwise known as the “Good N Plenty” clause for politicians to do what they think is Good for us while using Plenty of our dollars to do it.
Politicians and USSC judges have used this clause to dismantle the entire concept of limited government upon which, in part, this country was founded.
Thanks to dishonest lawyers (redundant), and activist judges, our government, which was to have derived its very limited powers from us, has become our oppressive master.
No honest reading of our founding documents could leave any doubt that the federal government was to be extremely limited in scope and thanks to communists within has incrementally increased its interference in our lives, usurped power reserved for the states and citizens, and taken on a powerful life of its own.
In a small showing of their arrogance, WE THE PEOPLE are not allowed to see the proceedings but only hear them after a 2 hour delay, which some here defend because it was standard practice. Well to those spineless individuals I say STANDARD for whom, an out of control government which only wants us to hear the edited version?
These ruling elite absolutely depend on us not getting together to fight them in the public arena of debate, the ballot box and if needed using what is left of our 2nd Amendment rights to take this country back to its very successful roots. As long as they can keep us fragmented they win and we lose.
What is the difference between when the founders got together to throw off the bonds of an oppressive king and now other than we have more lawyers and fewer people of character and backbone.
Before anyone raises this point, let me knock it down:
Yes, during the Clinton attempt at implementing universal health insurance coverage, the Republicans - led by Newt even - put forth the “mandated purchase” plan. This was done not out of a sense of this being the correct way, but as a rhetorical device: “ok, say we give you everything you’re asking for - will that be enough? oh, I see, it isn’t, ergo your demands are in bad faith with ulterior motives.” Sometimes you offer what is demanded as a way to prove that’s not what the demand is really about. It was not one of the better Republican moves, but it was effective in that context.
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.