Well then, Nancy, if the relevant factor is interstate commerce, why not allow the purchase of insurance across state lines?
To: BuckeyeTexan
It would be quite a sight to see the SC rule it unconstitutional. I can’t see it happening.
2 posted on
12/01/2009 11:59:03 AM PST by
Mr. Blonde
(You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
To: BuckeyeTexan
..the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited””
I find that statement troublesome and eerie.
3 posted on
12/01/2009 12:00:08 PM PST by
Ancient Drive
(DRINK COFFEE! - Do Stupid Things Faster with More Energy!)
To: BuckeyeTexan
I call BS on Pelosi and others who tout that their version of healthcare is constitutional. This argument is far from settled.
4 posted on
12/01/2009 12:05:38 PM PST by
cranked
To: BuckeyeTexan
Sorry Pelosi! But the Constitution does not allow for you to put “We the People” in prison for not buying something you tell us to buy.
Get lost asshat!
5 posted on
12/01/2009 12:14:33 PM PST by
avacado
To: BuckeyeTexan
This has been the reasoning behind virtually every one of the laws and regulations that have been imposed since the mid-30’s. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court allowed it to be done. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
6 posted on
12/01/2009 12:17:30 PM PST by
mak5
To: BuckeyeTexan
But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.
If this is true then why did our founding fathers specifically list powers granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 if the Insterstate Commerce clause by itself grants unlimited powers? Why didn't they write in only the Interstate Commerce clause and omit specific powers?
If the Interstate Commerce clause grants unlimited powers then why did our founding fathers bother to write the Tenth Amendment? Why start the 10th Amendment with the phrase "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" if all powers are delegated to Congress?
If the intent of the Constitution is to grant Congress unlimited powers then why did James Madison delineate between federal and state powers with the following statement in Federalist paper #45?
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
7 posted on
12/01/2009 12:19:33 PM PST by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
To: BuckeyeTexan
These people need to be removed from office. They have no understanding or respect to the Constitution.
8 posted on
12/01/2009 12:19:58 PM PST by
Secret Agent Man
(I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
In other words, Nancy believes that the federal government has practically unlimited power. Somehow that doesn’t jive with what the people who wrote it and ratified it said.
9 posted on
12/01/2009 12:20:56 PM PST by
Blood of Tyrants
(The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
So you ease the tension of people correctly stating that this is unconstitutional by pointing out other unconstitutional programs.
Oh, I get it. I’m sure that makes sense to San Fran Nan.
10 posted on
12/01/2009 12:22:10 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(A MELTING POT not a potters wheel. Join us. Don't try to turn this nation into the one you fled.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
I hope somewhere there is a state insurance commissioner who is already writing the court challenge. If not, that has to be our primary goal. To get a conservative into that office.
12 posted on
12/01/2009 12:32:10 PM PST by
kingu
(Party for rent - conservative opinions not required.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
The Constitution: There's Nothing It Can't Do!If this is true, when do the gulags start opening? It used to be a far fetched idea. I am not so sure anymore.
14 posted on
12/01/2009 12:44:02 PM PST by
Mark17
To: BuckeyeTexan
It appears that she believes her power to be unlimited and the people have little power if any at all.
To: BuckeyeTexan
The damnable overreach by the Feds in so many elements of life over the past 200 years or so has well set the stage for this abomination. The commerce clause has been a contributing tool in most of the anti-Constitutional pogroms to come out of Washington.
It is appalling to most Americans that the straightforward language of the Constitution has been so savagely usurped. And, it looks like things may be coming to a head.
It’s time to take back the country. It is past time to push the Federal leviathan back within the confines of the Constitution.
19 posted on
12/01/2009 1:03:07 PM PST by
PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
Looks a lot like a “long chain of abuses” to me.
20 posted on
12/01/2009 1:11:59 PM PST by
Charles Martel
("Endeavor to persevere...")
To: Jim Robinson
Checkout Nazi Pelosi’s statement in this article. I’m not surprised by it, just PO’d.
21 posted on
12/01/2009 1:13:20 PM PST by
BuckeyeTexan
(Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
To: BuckeyeTexan
23 posted on
12/01/2009 1:18:47 PM PST by
GloriaJane
(http://www.last.fm/user/GloriaJane)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson