David Freddoso: Five things we learned about Obamacare after it passed

Wash Examiner ^ | 4/7/10 | David Frederroso

[101voodoo]

"No, because of a fear of being called racist, the American people will have no choice but to sit quietly and take all that comes. The American people will do anything to show their “tolerance”."

While you are probably correct in saying people will go to great lengths to avoid being called racist (however that is defined today), their silence will not, I believe keep them from voting against Obama, his programs and Democrats running for re election this Fall. There is no one in the voting booth to intimidate them and in there they can vote their mind and heart without fear.

[NTHockey]

From the article:”House Democrats changed it in reconciliation.”

So how did this go through reconciliation? Another example of the unconstitutionality of this POS legislation.

I REFUSE TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.

[Rapscallion]

The American people will do anything to show their “tolerance”.

Until voting day in November. Until then we watch and remember. This they mis-read as "tolerance".

[HiTech RedNeck]

At least dogs consider it to be a treat.

[Apparatchik]

George Washington himself is going to rise from the grave; go to the White House; and kick Obama out the front door leaving a boot mark on his butt that won’t go away in our lifetime.

No, he won't - the American voting public has got to do this - metaphorically speaking, of course.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are absolutely right.

#6 for Mr. Freddoso: the increased insurance liabilities will cause American corporations to take huge first-quarter write-downs: to the tune of $100 million (Deere & Co), $150 million (Caterpillar), even $1 billion (AT&T), with still more to come.

The resulting hits? Employee drug plans, gone. And next: new-hires, gone. Smaller companies? They'll fold.

And this is going to happen right down the line, in every state, in every community, in mine, in yours.

Surprise, surprise.

[HiTech RedNeck]

What demented clown wished the combination of Obama and a Rat Congress on us?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I rather think it was a demented devil.

[Liz]

........(some) Americans are struggling to understand when and how they will get Ohaha's free healthcare. After all, it was explained in EXCRUCIATING detail, over a period of months and months and months and months......... The TRANSPARENCY of the Ohaha admin was exemplary.....a beacon of light for all adminstrations So unlike that warmonger Bush (/snix).

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

No wonder Ohaha's trying to shut us up. Tea partiers, conservatives, all us "right wingers" are the only ones smart enough to know the intricate details of the scam Ohaha, Pelosi and Reid pulled off.

The degradation of our govt by these people is astounding. Is it too much to hope that when the rest of the citizenry find out what really happened, they will rise up and demand these people get out of our govt?

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

CLOSEUP OF THE OHAHA ATROCITY Any federal version of health care is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not specifically list health care as a power granted to Congress. Not only are the citizenry not bound to comply with any unconstitutional act but we have the responsibility to uphold the Constitution against a tyrannical, runaway government.

REFERENCE 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" (a legal term) 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

[SeattleBruce]

“Some cash-strapped states expect this new definition to spawn court challenges, which will ultimately force them to pay exorbitantly high prices to doctors and hospitals for their existing patients.”

Good thing the states are in such good financial shape that they’ll be able to handle this no problem! /massive sarc