You know, when the elitists rulers in Congress begin to believe that their power comes from the laws they make and not from the US Constitution that gives them the rights to make those laws, then you know that we are very near to a tyrannical form of governance.
When our foundational documents that created our system of governance means nothing anymore, then is it time for a change?
Currently, Madam Speaker "I can't feel my face" Pelosi and Senator "leaky mouth" Leahy both do not care that there is no authorization in the Constitution for the ObamaCare bill that would FORCE citizens to buy health insurance, or face jail.
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
And, this is the law that they base their unconstitutional actions upon.
CSNNEWS: “If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?”
Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”
Regulating how safe your food is, regulating how the state teaches your kid is "similar" to dictating citizens to purchase into a government run health system.
And, that thought isn't relegated to just the House...
CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I’m asking--"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."
And, it gets worse from there:
CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which–"
Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
CNSNews.com: "The states do that."
Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."
Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states.
Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause...
So, you see, they give themselves the right to force CITIZENS to purchase in to their system because, over the years, they have been able to force STATES to do what they want in return for federal dollars.
Pelosi's mouth-piece goes on...
[Pelosi's] release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”
Ok, let's go through this one illegal line at a time.
First, it IS the state's authority to regulate auto insurance. The Feds can not take that authority away since the state's have claimed that right. And, to say that mandating auto insurance for accidents is comparable to mandating forced insurance coverage is ludicrous in the extreme.
Second, this will not just be a citizen's mandate. They intend to go after small businesses. If the small business does not provide coverage for their people, that owner will be forced to pay a penalty ON TOP of his mandated coverage he has to pay for himself and his family. So much for making the people responsible for getting their coverage. Why target the business owners if this bill forces citizens to pay for health insurance?
Third, I thought this bill was to insure everyone GOT health coverage? But now it would appear that this is designed to COVER those uninsured people who go to emergency rooms? Why not then have a specialized insurance program just for those people? Why lay the bill on to everyone else just because a small % of citizens fail to pay their doctor's bills?
The problem with emergency room finances is not that citizens are passing the buck to everyone else, it is that illegals are flooding the emergency rooms and not paying. This is the true revolving door. Hospitals are closing due to the massive debt illegals have inflicted upon hospitals.
Make no mistake, THIS is the real reason for this government mandated health insurance. To repay the government for the expense of treating illegal citizens.
Fourth: No constitutional problem? I don't even know where to begin with this. These people who are supposed to protect and defend the constitution don't even believe in it. They spit on it. They have deemed the constitution invalid and antiquated. Thus, they turn to their laws and ideologies to dictate their actions.
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
You must be registered with the federal government to buy, sell or trade goods and services. Now, where have I heard that before?
The Congressional Research Service puts it in perspective for those who are still confused:
[T]he Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"
"This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers," he said. "If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables."
"This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty," said Rivkin. "It is profoundly un-American."