During the campaign, then candidate Obama promised health care reform stemming from open bi-partisan effort.
What we got was a closed door hidden agenda crammed down our throats.
Effectively, the bill is illegal. It is illegal because it is unconstitutional.
While (obviously) I am not a Constitutional lawyer, a cursory examination of the Constitution reveals, to me at least, that it violates Article 4 Section 4 and the Tenth Amendment.
Furthermore, it provides for incredible spending and false-accounting savings over the "life" of the bill. Unfortunately, it is open-ended and could literally bankrupt our country.
Obviously, it violates the common sense of several state's attorneys-general as they have already file lawsuits to protect their state's citizens from illegal federal mandates.
Now, let's get this clear: I am totally one-hundred percent in favor of health care reform. Greedy lawyers, greedy health care providers and greedy litigious patients have broken our current health care system.
We need reform.
We DO NOT need reform in this particular underhanded way.
While not commenting on the merits of the health care bill, I am curious on your Constitutional question. I am always interested in Constitutions and how they function.
The 10th Amendment has been pretty much a dead letter since the War Between the States, unfortunatly.
Section four of the fourth article talkes about gurarnteeing certian forms of government to the States. How does this bill engage that issue?
I read a really interesting article by David Frum, former speech writer of GW Bush about this subject. He makes a fascinating point about how the interests of some of the media (Talk Radio, Fox News) and Republicans in the Governement are diverging. Would you be interested in seeing it?
Do you come to BA very often? We need to have an actual full lunch again.
Yes, an actual full lunch would be nice! ;-) I don't find myself in BA very often, unless I'm taking my bride to Schlotzky's.
For me, if it's a part of the Constitution, it's part of the law of the land. Just because it's being ignored doesn't mean the 10th Amendment is any less valid...
In my mind, (and again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar) it appears to me that A4S4 is being violated by the Federal Government's infringement on state's sovereignty and jurisdiction.
In addition, it is outside the scope of the Constitution to mandate citizens to purchase anything. It's like them telling me what kind of car to buy or what kind of suit to wear. That should be my choice.
If Obama had been a man of his word and not completed this behind closed doors as he explicitly promised NOT TO DO, then this might be a different conversation.
But Obama lied, and my own party, the Democrats, are going to end up bankrupting our country while they revoke all of our personal rights.
And, yes, I would be interested in reading the article by Frum. Send me a link or an email!
Blessings to you, bro.
Just commenting here on 'telling lies.' We are currently looking for a used RV to possibly do volunteer work. You would be amazed at the ads showing dogs in the photos, but the ad says 'no pets.' Others showing ashtrays full of ashes with lighters next to them, but the ad says 'no smoking unit.' Photos showing filthy carpets and water-stained curtains/walls, but the ad says 'in mint condition.'
Makes you wonder if lying is no longer considered a 'bad' thing.
Post a Comment