Skip to comments.Too big to fail, too long to read
Posted on 04/08/2012 6:43:11 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
As we await the U.S. Supreme Court decision sometime in June on President Obama's Affordable Care Act, Americans are pondering what will happen if the insurance mandate portion of the 2,700-page bill is ruled unconstitutional, a very real possibility given the tough questioning the provision received when the court heard oral arguments last week.
However you stand on the question of requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, the possibility of rejecting the primary funding provision of the law, and allowing the rest of the huge law to stand, is a dire prospect. Even our free-spending lawmakers flinch at the possibility of vast new entitlements in the face of virtually no corresponding funding source.
We hope the court throws the whole thing out, the issue goes back to Congress, and that this time, our lawmakers can draft a law that isn't too long and complicated to read and comprehend.
Surely, that isn't asking too much.
(Excerpt) Read more at nptelegraph.com ...
I expect Obama will ignore the SCOTUS and implement the law.
I expect somehow NBC will lie about it.
#3 is a foregone conclusion.
I believe that the “mandate” will be pushed down to the state level where some states will enforce it others will not.
“We need to pass it in order to know what’s in it.” Still sounds more like Nancy Pelosi talking to her doctor about a stool sample than a major pieced of legislation. Wasn’t a trip up Katie Couric’s colon enough of a ride?
So, what we have is a law that some see as too big to fail, but also too big to actually read.The fact that the bill is purposely unreadable, and fundamentally non-understandable (can anyone REALLY read it and grasp all 2700 pages of it?), should be reason enough to toss the thing out.
It's tantamount to having a bill written in Klingon. Although even that's not right. There are plenty of people who understand Klingon. There is no human in existence who can truly say "I understand what this law does". Whoever says that is a liar.
It doesn’t matter IF we all reject it. Refuse to pay on religious grounds. Incorporate as a church. Rahm Emmanuel did that to avoid paying taxes.
States that are sueing can still nullify. They need pressure and guidance.
You seem to have some kind of fixation
Obama is the modern day Nero.
America is burning - He fiddles and is proud of himself.
...President Romney will move to "save" the "good" parts...like the "Secretary shall".....
none of this is going to end up good.
...keep your powder dry..
You are so correct. The states are party to the compact(Constitution) that created the three branches of federal government. Any laws not made “in pursuance thereof” are unconstitutional. Nothing says the federal judiciary has the final say on constitutionality; the states are the final arbiter. Through their delegates appointed to the Constitution Convention, they introduced, made motions, passed or failed to pass those motions, as states and not as individual delegates.
The Constitution was debated and ratified by three fourths of the states, not popular vote by the people. The Constitution is amended by ratification by the states; the President is constitutionally elected by electoral votes by states.
The states have the power to nullify unconstitutional actions by the federal government, but they have to learn to exercise it. So, it is up to the people in each state to “educate” their state legislature on this power they possess and it will take a grass roots effort to get this done. We didn’t get to this point in our history overnight and it won’t be corrected overnight
I'd rather see Congress keep its grubby paws out of our health care system, along with assorted other things that Americans don't want them messing with.
Just how much are we going to allow Congress to regulate in the name of regulating commerce between the States? Is there any aspect of our lives, any action or nonaction that they cannot regulate compel or forbid under the name of commerce between the States?
To me it isn't so much that I don't WANT them to mess with health care - as I want the assurance that they don't have that power!