3 Reasons the Senate's Healthcare bill is Unconstitutional

There is also the provision that the bill can not be revoked by any following congress. That is also unconstitutional.

What an insane and very unconstitutional provision.

Would that pass the SCOTUS smell test? That lawsuit would be the very first challenge I think if this nightmare actually gets signed.

There was supposed to be a determination in Congress of the Constitutionality of this bill. What ever happened to that?

The Senate voted 60-39 to reject Sen. John Ensign's call to examine the constitutionality of a health care mandate central to the overhaul bill.

The Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper to Congress and the republican vote was good but that's only because they are out of power at the moment. The incumbent's have shown their true colors and most all of them need pink slips.

I'm afraid Matt is largely right on this. The Left totally ignores the Constitution and too many on the Right just give it lip service. We may have 15-20 constitutionalists left in both houses if we're lucky.

What neither party seems or wants to understand is the Constitution limits them both. Both parties simply want the other guy limited, not them.

Well said Charles.

That figures. Another party line vote. It is obvious the Democrats don't want to know if their bills are Constitutional.

Only thing important to them is waht Obama wants.

Charles, that is the reason we need to look at a candidates record and not listen to what he says. We need Constitutionalists no matter the political persuasion.

Terry, I'm thinking what Obama wants is what Pelosi tells him to want.

As well as whatever the Federal Reserve and Wall Street want.

And what the terrorist want...

I think ya'll are going to have to suck it up like we did when Bush was in office. Not to be mean but it's the truth, it hurts.

What? Since Bush supported countless unconstitutional things, now we have to endure it again under Obama?

This kind of thinking will leave nothing but ashes of our liberties and Constitutionally protected rights.

I am not going to suck this up. If the media thought they saw angry mobs over the summer, they haven't seen anything yet.

No we're not going to have to suck this up. Are you insane? If we allow them to write unconstitutional bills, they'll just continue doing so until the Constitution is nothing. We're not going to let that happen.

There is quite a movement out there now about not paying taxes if this passes, besides the fact that each one of the idiots in Washington who is coming up to vote we will try to remove from office. We cannot allow this.

Ghostly, gues you have never heard the old proverb "two wrongs don't make a right"...

What did the Bush Administration ever do that included a provision making it irrevocable?

In 2006 the Dems were in control of Congress and nothing changed. They went along with Bush. They also didn't read the bills they were voting on. Rep. Barney Frank is making a big deal that he spoke out. He didn't. He did some grumbling here and there but to the Press he was all sweet about being patriotic.

We'll have to see if the Supreme Court knocks it down.

It would be great if they did but the Supreme Court has not been doing it's job much at all since Roosevelt.

I'd rather not have tio wait 6-18 years for the Supreme court to have a look at things. I think each thing, idea should be looked at by the Supreme Court before it's placed in a bill, especially before it's voted on.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

I don't see where that says it must go through the court system.

Dorothy, that was part of the job of the Suprime Court, was to check and see if a bill was Constitutional or not. Over the years it has become a playground for Politicians and Judges. It is not where laws are made, it is supposed to be where laws were checked before being passed.

Even if some provisions are unconstitutional that doesn't mean the entire bill is and you did not even mention the one that I think most clearly is. Could that be because becaise it is a sweetjeart provision that favors a specific insurance company?

I only gave 3 to start with, what is yours? 'Sweet deals' for corporations are unconstitutional as well.

The whole bill is unconstitutional according to the 10th amendment.

"Even if some provisions are unconstitutional that doesn't mean the entire bill is and you did not even mention the one that I think most clearly is. Could that be because becaise it is a sweetjeart provision that favors a specific insurance company? "

This bill is not constitutional in over the vast majority, which means by the outlines of the Constituion, the Suprime Court has no duty but to send it back as Unconstitutional, and with an outline of why they deamed it, with what parts do fall under the Constitution. If that was done, likely only 2-3 pages would remain of the 2000+.

Suprine? Is that a combo subprime and supreme? Just teasing you.

The Supreme Court can pick and choose what it wants to hear. So first to to get it on the list and then get one of the Judges to hear it.

Maybe you should try getting back in touch with reality. The federal government has been regulating issues that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for decades.

Just because we have been ignoring the Constitution for decades does not mean we should continue to ignore it.

And it must stop.

Matt makes that point Wila, are you saying because the government has been doing it for so long that makes it right? What will the next violation be?

Right, it's the old "Everybody's doing it, Mom" argument.

Calling the fine for not taking the Gov insurance a Tax instead of a Fine makes it a criminal offence not to have it. That is definately a big no-no.

Agreed

I think this will be a giant test for the supreme court and a chance to see who's who on the bench.

It should not have to come to that. Those idiots all know what they're doing is unconstitutional and they're doing it anyway.

So long as you refuse to lead the charge to shut down the only broadcast news network owned by a self-declared socialist---that is, FOX News as owned by Rupert Murdoch---your professed concerns for the Constitution mimic the purest fraud---or worse.

I would rather lead the charge to ban the koolaide you've been drinking Teri.

Terri, you seem to be uninformed. Various sides of issues are presented. The two most vocal, one is an Independent and the other is a Liberationist. None that I'm aware of is your "socialist". Could you provide a name and documentation please.

Teri, Fox has nothing to to with this issue.

LOL, yes Teri support this unconstitutional act by violating the First Amendment too.

Just for clarity: are you saying that you know American Constitutional Law better than President Barack Obama? Do you mind sharing your credentials?

LOL! We don't know how qualified he really is because he won't release his college records but then again his call for transparency is limited to others, not himself. That being said, how qualified have ALL the politicians been, that ran social security into the ground, to run this country? Put the crack pipe down.

Amen to that Jeff!

Jeffy boy that is probably the most incoherant comment you've posted and you've posted some doozies. The man led the Harvard Law Review. Suck it up. Talk about bending over for the crack pipe, you can't see the screen for the haze...

SS?? You mean that socialist FDR program the GOP wanted in the stock market?? Imagine it Jeff: Dubya and the GOP circus had their way and put SS in the market and the market, deregulated under Bush, crashes. Wanna tell me ANY GOP would have been elected for ANYTHING for the next generation??. It is ironic that political incompetence and failure of the RW agenda is the only that has saved it from the chopping block. You guys really crack me up.

It does not matter whether Barak Obama spent 100 years studying the Constitution or not. That does not mean he or anyone else will follow it.

I can read the plain English of the Constitution and see that not only Obama but also most all of the Democrats and Republican incumbents are doing unconstitutional things very frequently.

Sam, have you seen Obama's college records? I appreciate the fact that you think elected politician know best but I have evidence on my side to the contrary. I'd tell you to stop taking your psychotic medication but that might make you dangerous rather than just plain ignorant.

Teri,

If the President was a constitutional scholar, obviously he was a poor one. It takes little other than an ability to read to understand the basics and he plus the majority of Congress violate it every day. Funny how the document was designed for us all to understand but our political class and many of their supporters don't even read it.

The oath he and Congress take to defend the Constitution is a joke. None of them even pretend to acknowledge it.

I second those comments. Obama studied the Constitution so he knew how to circumvent it's very existence.

Our representatives and presidents should know the constitution very well. So should the citizens.

The point is, though, knowing the Law of the Land well does not mean at all that you are going to obey it.

Now let's see: People know not to steal, not to murder, not to yell fire in a theater... Gee, maybe the comprehend the constitution too!

Didn't Obama say that he had a problem with the constitution because it precisely limits the power of the government? I suggest that Obama became very clear on what the constitution says so that he can find ways to circumvent the power of our founding document.

In Obama's case knowing the constitution is like knowing your enemy. Obama is no friend of the constitution.

You can't defend one or the other. Neither Bush or Obama want to be bound by the Constitution.

Very interesting points to think about. I wonder if anything can actually be done about it.

Thanks Heather. Fixing these problems is a long term project, as long as the people can be fooled into keeping politics as usual going nothing will improve.

The "10th er" argument was used by those who wished to thwart the Bill of Rights AND the 14th Amendment. You don't have a clue about the legal history of the nation. If you want to defeat healthcare reform resort to the usual lies of the neo-fascist RW and stay away from the Constitution because you have NO argument there.

It's just noise R.F. 21st Century "know-nothings." Just poo-flingers laboring under the desperate hope some will stick. Morons trying to keep each other warm by stoking a fire of lies.

No Sam, those I'm close to and myself are free thinking, self actualizing, self responsible citizens who want to make our own decisions. We happen to believe that when you get a "single" benefit or service, YOU ought to be responsible for paying for it. You have the choice to share the expense with an insurance company if you pay your premiums. Keep your hands out of my pocket for your "ice cream cone".

OK fine. Then lets have a law that when you get splatted on the Federal interstate the EMT's riffle thru your purse to make certian you have valid health insurance, paid up OR the economic means of funding your own care. Until they do, you lay on the street and bleed. YOU are asking ME to fund people without the personal responsibility OR means for health care thru higher insurance rates and medical costs. YOUR irresponsible hands have been in MY pockets for YEARS.

The "10th er" argument was used by those who wished to thwart the Bill of Rights...

What? The 10th amendment is part of the Bill of Rights!!!!

Absolutely correct. My mistake. However the claim the 10th supercedes the Federal right to impose law and regulation upon the States is false. The Federal right was established since the Marshall Court and upheld ever since.

Again Sam you wander out, pick a part of the Constitution and apply it while trying to ignore the rest.

The first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Marshal made his Federal supremacy argument regarding areas of Federal responsibility. He, like the rest of government at the time understood the clear limitations emplaced in the document. To say he stood for an unlimited Federal reach is preposterous-especially given the personal understanding/knowledge of the Founding Fathers at that time in our history.

No, I did not say that Charles. The early arguments AGAINST the Bill of Rights were led by Southern slave holders who gained their representation on the 3/5th clause and feared a specfic Declaration of Right might cede to Federal authority the ability to eventually abolish or restrict slavery, thereby diminish their illgotten governmental power. (Read "James Madison and The Struggle for the Bill of Rights" by Richard Labunski). The 10th was added at their insistance as a hedge against encroachment upon their power. Marshall expanded Fed power in several decisions redefining the scope of the 10th and in 230 years the 10th has been rarely invoked to restrict Fed authority. It was used as an argument against the Emancipation Proclaimation, the 13th, 14th Amendment, and on and on by every wacko who does not like a Federal law. Tis not I who selectively reads history.

If Health Care is such a universal right, then those who demand it must also be demanding the reinstitution of slavery.

Doctors and nurses will no longer have the right to work or not work as free people could choose to do. The demands on the 'free' health care system will become greater than the current system can handle. Doctors and nurses will become slaves to an ever more oppressive and powerful federal government.

Last I hear ... slavery is unconstitutional.

Well said TICA that's exactly what it is-slavery. A different kind that what we had 200 years ago but just as bad. NO one has a right to someone else's labor or property!

Thank you.

Slavery to the government is not better than slavery to the corporations.

But I do agree we need reform badly but nothing like what the Congress is working on.

Just like our political parties, there is NO lesser of the TWO evils...

Well, we certainly don't have to worry about any good intentions, constitutional or not.

They may appear to be good intentions but I'm sure many of them are really bad intentions in sheep's clothing.

Shouldn't you nay sayers be schooling yourselves on the NEXT scheduled campaign to oppose something? I can't believe we are going to have to suffer thru 2 more months of the HCR belly achin' until anything even passes.
How about the large cable operators that are about to DROP all the FOX stations because they are want a bigger chunk of revenue. AACCKKK.....what will you do if you have to lose Fox or if you are forced to PAY more to keep it? Some customer loyalty there! Way to go FAUX!

Dale, the problem is these "pro H C" folks want more freebies. They haven't figured out that everything has a price tag and ours will be freedom of choice.

LOL APE, Fox does not have a thing to do with this post.

It's good to be a nay-sayer to unconstitutional bills.

Good points Dale. But the most important change will involve the tax code; currently healthcare benefits are not taxed; this is wrong, and has led to an over utilization of insurance.

Every time the Supreme Court rules on tort reform legislation, it gets looser.

So, go ahead.

Make it worse.

Tim, we'll have to put constitutionalist justices in there first.

It's the last thing a constitutionalist would find fault with.

Because you appear to be a somthing for nothing government benifits power grabbing victim of your own stupidity.

Quick someone is wrong on the internet. Thanks Matthew M., Martha M., Col. George W. for overstating your opinion. Do you really need to respond to everyone who is in opposition to you?

Maybe we should of listen to leadership of the GOP. Sarah Pailin's 'Death Panel' lie really would of added to the debate.Or what about the early reliance on the Congressional Budget Office impact estimates by the GOP. Dem fixed the issues and now they just find yet another vehicle to get their way. Its no longer about what is right for the GOP its about making sure their rich backers do not have to pay higher taxes and are position to reap huge profits. This is why the GOP has not been part of the debate. They didn't want to be. Hope GOP voters take note in 2010. They are for the corporations paying for their bloated campaigns and multi-home budgets. Last thing GOP pundits are for is the people.

LOL, yeah Thomas and the Dems are really concerned about their constitutional duties of proper management of the people's money or their rights. I do happen to like the fact when taxes are lowered for "the rich" people like me see some of that cut too. The Dems don't even pretend to cut taxes for anyone.

That the GOP is worried about some of its rich backers doesn't exactly mask the fact the Dems are worried about theirs does it? Of course the Dems are much better at sounding holier than thou in the BS line "it's for the people" while being at least as bad as their opponents.

J Thomas, guess you haven't heard that the big winners in this deal is the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. Boy has this administration cuckolded you!

Thanks Matthew M., Martha M., Col. George W. for overstating your opinion. Do you really need to respond to everyone who is in opposition to you?

Since this is my post I usually respond to every comment whether I agree or not.

Last thing GOP pundits are for is the people.

I'm afraid you are right when it comes to the average GOP incumbent. But the same also applies to the Dems.

Last I heard, republicans were not even allowed to participate in drafting this legislation. But you loonies on the left will find a way to blame republicans when this health bill shows itself to be the monstrosity that it is. You democrats will be like Erkle .... totally amazed at the unintended consequences of your nefarious power grabs. You will look over your shoulders in amazement and ask, "Did I do that?"

Good points though the example of roads actually is supported by the Constitution (Art 1Sec 8)

But arguing the Constitution is generally a waste of time on Gather. Few, if any Dems care about it and many Repubs aren't much better

Charles, that's only for interstate highways
-- the feds have no jurisdiction over roads within a state (interestingly Hawaii has an interstate highway -- think about it)

you said, "the example of roads actually is supported by the Constitution (Art 1Sec 8)"
~~~

Tessa, since one road leads to another road which leads to a bigger road taking the general populace from here to there and everywhere... at what point do you define the "acceptable federal" roads

No road should be federal responsibility other than roads on the speck of land that the federal government should own.

Good point Tessa, how funny it is for Hawaii to have interstate roads, lol.

I'm not up to date on how much land is privately owned, but it is not the majority.

Tessa, the roads point was that the Federal government COULD build/maintain them. I was NOT arguing the Feds have any real control over anything deemed a state road. Nor did the FFs seem to want them too either.

I came across this article that speaks to some of the legal issues that might come up with the Bill in future...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/

Thanks John, some good points in that article.

"There are a lot of states that are concerned that this violated the 10th Amendment and they are weighing their options," Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel, said in a statement.

So while I will not name any specific states I will make it sound like quite a number by using the word 'alot' Great reporting Fox news. Use of generalized quotes makes for awesome coverage. Wonder if a lot will ultimately move forward as zero valid cases.

"Nora J A." wrote:

"Terri, you seem to be uninformed. Various sides of issues are presented. The two most vocal, one is an Independent and the other is a Liberationist. None that I'm aware of is your "socialist". ...

By your first sentence, you seem neither a law student nor an attorney or otherwise thoughtful reader of law and I'll not hold out for any analytical meticulousness on the details of our fine Constitution in light of your lack of such in these few sentences. Your third “sentence” is not a formal sentence and I’m uncertain of its meaning.

As for my comment to Marilyn (who claims to be concerned with losing Constitutional powers to socialism or its influence in this thread and others), my comment on the socialist owned FOX News is perfectly appropriate:

(a) The supposed “concern” here is for the CONSTITUTION.
(b) As I’ve said previously, the founders saw fit to Constitutionally protect exactly one free enterprise and that was the media because of its essential role in being a watchdog for government.
(c) Therefore, any news medium that falls into the hands of those who not only uphold a different and antagonistic form of government but who specifically oppose our form of government should be among your first concerns. FOX News, however, is not. (Read on for how FOX News, actually SUPPORTS Obama to your and others' amusing ignorance).

"Could you provide a name and documentation please."

Lovely of you to ask, Nora J A. Of course I can and had already done so on a previous thread. Again:

From page 38 of the biography, Murdoch, author William Shawcross writes:
“Rupert then turned to politics. Princess Elizabeth had recently succeeded her father, George VI. Rupert thought her first Christmas address both dull and arrogant, and wrote,

Murdoch is then said to have added an extraordinary postscript, written in magenta ink, reaffirming his loyalty to Lenin:

Your beloved FOX News is not only owned by a socialist, but owned by an OBAMA SUPPORTING socialist. I fear you've been fooled again. I'm afraid it's been known by many any business and for some time---particularly by some who were educated with his current wife Wendi, that Murdoch does not even like FOX News. He looks down on you. He thinks you are stupid. He thinks you are the most gullible demographic and sought to provide "news" cheaply to you because he knew the overhead could be low for the return on eyeballs (the content "quality" requires little research). What is absolutely amazing is how oblivious your constituency is to your primary insult and enemy, so blinded by hate for imaginary enemies and consumed with the programmatic food fight for the low intelligent as you are:

“During the Q&A, I pressed Murdoch---a new U.S. citizen---on whether he would actually vote for Obama in November. He said he was leaning toward it, but would know in the next six months. When I asked if I could call him, he said yes, then joked I could probably just figure it out from reading the Post.”
Barack Obama's Unlikely Supporter: Rupert 'Fox News' Murdoch

One of many samples of evidence that Murdoch seeks to control media at a content level and, hence, control and influence government:
“Murdoch even nonchalantly owned up to influencing the New York Post to back Obama in the New York primary.”
Barack Obama's Unlikely Supporter: Rupert 'Fox News' Murdoch

“The irony is that while Rupert Murdoch is preaching in the US against "neo-socialism" his media empire tends to hire nothing but "neo-socialists." His Australian flagship The Australian is unbelievably left-wing in its reporting; most of its journalists are thoroughly anti-market, anti-American, pro-green and deeply hostile to classical liberalism.“ A staunch conservative wrote.

Perhaps this is enough "documentation"---for now.

What has happened for a long time in the U.S. is the elaborate toying by privileged ruling class whites with the undereducated, rural and lower class white who mistakenly thinks her/his interests are aligned with those of the ruling class white, who are effortlessly distracted by the vitriol of programmatic hate, rants of "patriotism" and supposed "threats" thereto, and bigotry, so that privileged whites might go on unchallenged as usual, laughing as another author documented well, at the "Jesus-Christers" and other grossly ignorant consumers of political extemism.

By all appearances from this thread---with your "arguing" here confusedly with me or others rather than contributing your energy toward the overthrow of FOX, it's working fine as ever.

Fox is a corporate news station and they are part of the problem. The corporatists believe in corporate welfare which is socialism. I don't play favorites with the mainstream corporate media they are all bad in my opinion.

I don't know Dale. I never mentioned Fox in my post.

I like all three.

Shaken, or stirred.

But never just one, by itself.

So what is your point Teri? No one who admires any acknowlaged socialist should have any right to the public forum?

Don't several of Obama's Czars profess admiration for such notable socialists as Chairman Moa and Carl Marx?

Fox News has no political power. The Obama Czars have quite a bit of political power.

Maybe what you are actually saying is that only those who share your world view should have a right to speak in public.

And I thought that liberals believed in freedom of speech. Guess not.

Biggest problem is..... our current gov't doesn't seem to care about the constitution - or at least it seems a majority don't..... let's hope we, the people, wake up before the next presidential election!

We'll have to take the 2010 elections seriously too.

If we don't wake up and throw most of the incumbents of both parties it is hopeless.

Curses, foiled by new-fangled media again!

My evil plan to spread the Luddite message on horseback is kaput!

They either need to throw the bill out, or throw themselves out. The states will fight this bill as unconstitutional and we'll start by the back room deal with Senator Nelson having us pay for Nebraska's medicaid for eternity. How absurb.

They have not even reconciled the bills and there are a lot of cases building up already. Hopefully the courts will do the right thing but I'm not counting on it.

As the rapper group, Tag Team, says, "Whoomp there it is!!!" The tired "welfare" statement where it is twist to mean that the welfare state it OK. I'm afraid on this one the Founding Fathers did step in it because the original statement was "property" not "Welfare" which the latter was put in because property could be seen as a slavery issue. Myself, I would have just taken the original ball and ran with it.

The last time that states fought the federal government was in 1860. They lost in 1865.

If the federal government does not start to listen to the American people history might repeat itself.

Maybe this time around the states can win by nullifying unconstitutional laws. Arizona is already working on a ballot initiative to nullify part of this healthcare bill.

We are still a free people. It is insanity to assume that any government has god like powers of goodness and infallibility. The less power a government has the more freedom the people have. Striking the perfect balance between power and freedom is largely beyond the ability of any collection of like minded people.

If a perfect balance between power and freedom ever existed there would never have been wars, or social injustice or any reason to advocate changes of any kind.

Elections are where changes happen in a free society.

Societies where there is no change must keep their people in tight control to survive. Currently, that bastion on liberty and universal happiness in North Korea comes to mind.

Thanks everyone for helping me reach 500 views for the first time!

Very well said.. thanks for sharing

Thank you Sharon.

Dale Coparanis Dec 26, 2009, 5:42pm EST
"How did the question of Fox get in here? Who cares?"

The founding fathers care. That's why they addressed it in the Constitution as any serious student of Constitutional Law deeply understands. It [freedom of the press] is pretty much the dead center of the whole document--which is a bit related to the fact that it's missing in 100% of all non free societies.

Matthew M. Dec 26, 2009, 6:02pm EST
"I don't know Dale. I never mentioned Fox in my post."

And that would be the problem.

Teri you make have valid points but you should create a new post if you want to discuss Fox. This post is about the unconstitutional healthcare bill.

Montana passed a law mandating auto insurance for every car you own, rather than insuring the driver. It's the driver, not the car, that is the problem in the highest percentage of accidents. I've always felt it was unconstitutional, but our supremes in Mt have turned away from the voters several times.

As for this unconstitutional bill, what I wonder is, what is it going to take, before we actually PHYSICALLY throw these scumbags out of our buildings, where they are doing nothing but destroying our nation, our sovereignty and our freedom?

I'm not really an OLD man, but I'm a veteran and I took an oath when I went into the Army. As far as I'm concerned, that oath was never taken from me, when I got out. Our congress, both houses, take a similar oath ... To defend the Constitution. I'm ready. Are any of you? Our own military is already preparing for civil unrest here. Do we wait until it's too late? Or do we pray that there are enough patriots in our military, to take control of an out of control government?

Things need serious thought ... and serious action. I'm afraid that waiting to vote these scum out of office, will be too late. They are already doing everything possible, to tick people off and do you see any of them sweating the future ...eg: losing their cush jobs? Nope. Not a one. Think about it. We need a third party to take control of both houses and damned soon.

They don't sweat their future because come campaiging time in 2010, they will have found a way to sway their constituents to vote for them. Third party??? That will probably take another generation to create, in the meantime, we are stuck with those in office who treat us like the idiots I guess we are for letting them do this to us.

Dale I very much hope you take up arms in rebellion against the Government of the United States. Firing squad for you bud. That's what they do to traitors to the flag and nation. Dipshit.

Sam, you appear to be the "dipshit" here. I don't believe I stated that I personally would take up arms. Where'd you read that?

And before you lable me a traitor, I think you had BEST learn some history from the founders of this country. Because, the facts are, that the 2nd Amendment was put in place, in case our government got out of hand, became a tyrannical form of government.

I'm a Vietnam veteran, asshole. I love my home and my homeland. Because I'm pissed at this stupid Democrat controlled communism, you dare to call me a traitor. You are a complete asshole and idiot. Take a flying F**k at the moon, you idiot.

If anyone stands in front of firing squads, it should be the traitors who are circumventing our constitution, for their own gain. Get a life you flippin' IDIOT. And don't ever contact me. You are probabaly more of a traitor than I could ever possibly be.

And yes, I do support our military taking control of the Capital, rather than becoming a part of a one world government and losing our sovereign status.

Actually you don't raise to the level of the dipshit Dale. More like chickenshit. Coward. See, it takes guts to live in a Republic where a majority can elect representitives who then craft law which applies to everybody. See, lame ignorant assholes like you are NOT new in our history. Since the founding many laws were written to educate them, a Civil War was fought to school them again.

The last conservative meltdown in 1929 resulted in the regulations which led the nation to world wide power and prosperity. Yet, assholes like yourself, using your arguments even went so far as to incite military rebellion against FDR. Ever heard of Marine Corp Maj Gen Smedley Butler, dipshit? He was dual Medal of Honor winner and in the Depression era was America's best loved soldier. He was approached by the Duponts, Gerald McGuire, Prescott Bush, among others to lead a military revolt against the Government. He went along with their interest and being a Patriot, not a chickshit, he promptly testified to the The McCormack-Dickstein Committee on national security and blew the whistle. FDR, wisely knowing these nutless bastards were merely impotent traitors did a very Obama-like thing and let the publicity do its work. See then, as now, most Americans are not cowardly dipshits afraid of our functioning governmental system. Were it me, I would have hung the bastards out to dry. Imagine what a better world we would have today if Prescott Bush served time for treason?

If and when this nation is ever attacked or threatened by likes of you and those who believe as you, trust me, a national wrath unknown in our history will land on your chickenshit head. Goddam you flakes piss me off.

Sam, how can you even say shit like this???
You need to uncover your head and let some light into your eyes and brain if you happen to find it!!

Dale fought for his life, his family and his Country and the freedom for you to run your stupid mouth, you should be grateful there are still some good men and women who will fight for you A**holes!! Have you ever done that? I am assuming the answer would be a big fat NO!

To call one of our honored Hero's/Veterans a chickenshit just seems to me like you really have lost one or more of the screws that holds your head on straight!!
It is people like you and obammy that makes me support our military taking our government, why would anyone want to be a one world government??
Your ruler (Duh-Bama) is NOT "our" king he is yours, I pray to God he does not make it the whole 4 years as your prez, or we will not have one thing, even our computers to complain on, we will have no rights what so ever at all if he is in for the full term!

I think cowards like you and Dale and anyone else who advocates the military overthrow of the government should rush the White House gates with loaded weapons. Today. Put your "courage" where your mouth is. Let's do America a favor and clear out the traitors and improve the gene pool. We could do with far less idiots who cannot read history, understand the rudiments of the electoral process or have the remotest idea what is in the Constitution. Charge the gates TODAY or do some intelligent research.

No, Jackie, those who take arms against this government AND who have worn the uniform of the Armed forces have disgraced themselves and the nation as a whole. Ever REALLY look at the flag? 50 stars representing 50 state representing the people of those states and those who they elect to enact law. You people disgust me.

And BTW, Dubya was the elected President. Your Pres, mine and every other citizen. Obama is the elected Pres. Your Pres, mine and every other citizen. Dubya and the conservatives were thrown out for incompetence greater than any in our history. You can try to do the same next election cycle, if you are able, or you can rush the gates.

Sam, Let's do America a favor and clear out the traitors and improve the gene pool.
You do understand that is exactly what your messiah wants to do don't you? And you think this is ok? Boy are you one sick B*****D!!

Not sure why you think the armed forces have disgraced themselves and the nation...you idiot there would not be a free country if it had not been for our armed forces, you really are more ignorant than I thought you were.

Oh yes I have seen that flag many times it flies freely at our home, and has been draped over many family members caskets that fought for you to run your mouth, and those stars USED to stand for the people in those states but your asshole duh bamma is stealing that away piece by piece, and talk about disgust. If you want to live in a communistic country then you need to go where they are ...there are plenty of them, but leave our Counrty alone, we don't want to live that way!

General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you?

I will weigh in on this. I pray to God that we can change this country peacefully as Glenn Beck put it. The tea parties and so on, they will grow and hopefully have an effect on things. Obama is taking us down the wrong path and as Lynyrd Skynyrd puts it in "God & Guns," "I don't want to live in that type of America." Well, I might be paraphrasing it a bit. After the turn of the new year, I plan on putting more time into that effort. I will fight against anybody who wants to take us down the socialist path and I will not give up. I prefer to use my brain and bytes to do this.

However, like anything else, there could be a time when force may be needed. That time isn't now but it is getting closer and closer if we keep on a current path. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around, with apologies to "V For Vendetta." They are supposed to work for us, not be our shepherd. Force was the result of governments ignoring the will of the people. Even the American Revolution was a part of that, long before bullets flew, there had been many peaceful attempts in the 1760's and early 1770's to get King George III and the Parliment to listen. Again, I hope it doesn't get that far, I just hope they get the message from us and quit pushing us around and into a corner. Animals do know if pushed into a corner, they will fight. A dog will fight, a cat will fight, a chicken will fight. Even a baby kitten or a day old baby chick will fight. That is the most dangerous time and when they keep doing what they are doing is Washington, they are getting closer of pushing us into that corner.

Jim Quinn from the "Quinn and Rose Show" said "the 2nd Amendment is the reset button to the Constitution," I agree with that, but it is there in case if all else, all other peaceful means are exhausted. I don't feel comfortable talking about this but we cannot ignore history either. Hopefully we will get a Thomas Jefferson instead of a Robespierre.

Jackie, I agree with you, too many people fought and died for this country to let it be taken away and destroyed like this. I plan to jump into the effort to stop this after the New Year. It is better to light a candle to fight the darkness instead of just cursing the darkness. My grandfather was among the first at Normandy. He later made it to St. Lo and from what I've been told, the concentration camps of Buchenwald. The war screwed up his mind for a while but many other ended up with maimed bodies or didn't comeback at all. I feel we owe it to them to stop the destruction of America, even to the point of telling our leaders, "hey, you're dead wrong and you better listen to us." We need to be brave. Had the Germans developed balls to that point, maybe Hitler could have been stopped and 73 million lives saved. I cannot look a World War II vet in the eyes unless I know I have given my part to stop this slide down the wrong path. I pray to God it will not require the use of force, I'd rather fight with brains, words, bytes and ideas instead of an M1 Garand.

Well the sad part is when you guys pick up arms you won't be simply shot as traitors. YOu'll be hauled off to court, plead insanity and be placed in a padded room. Too bad.

Charles, I applaud you, and I stand beside you, great statement!

Sam, if this country is taken over within the next year by barry and his friends, and his agenda's keep getting more toward communism, if we are allowed and we meet again one year from today, I believe the changes you see, that you do not believe are bad or happening, I think you will be here saying the same things we are. You will be in the same shape the rest of us are by this take over, and yes it is a take over.

So guys, what are you accomplishing with that mudslinging? I normally don’t delete comments but if you can’t act like adults here and use decent language I’ll delete.

We have got to step back and admit that both parties, both Bush and Obama, have screwed us. Until we do so and stop defending these crooks the people will be divided against each other instead of the against powers that be who are working for their best interest and not ours.

Matt, agreed, Bush did screw us economically with the bank bailouts, it is like accelerating a car to 60 MPH, Obama has put the petal to the metal and we are now going 150 MPH. I think this reckoning was due for a long time actually, I remember back ni the 1970's, there was talk of a crash in the 1980's. Noted libertarian Robert J. Ringer made the point that it was supposed to happen then but what saved us was the policies of Ronald Reagan that made economic conditions more ideal for business and the computer boom of the 1980's followed by the internet boom of the 1990's and 2000's. So I think we staved it off for a generation. In some ways, I wish it did happen then, then hopefully we would have been over it by now and things would have been fixed plus if things go into the crapper, I would rather be 23 than my age now, 43.

Jackie, I'm like the "Ghost of Christmas Present" trying to show what possible future we could have if things do not change. I guess I'll leave it up to God and hope He gives me the wisdom, ability, knowhow and judgement to do what is needed when whatever happens. Our detractors ignore human nature and animal instinct. Come to think of it, they ignore things that will hurt their chances of survival, in that sense, my proverbial baby chick or kitten and other animals has a one up on them, they do have the will and sense to survive. I want to survive too and will do my best to protect myself, family, friends, country and way of life to the utmost.

Actually R.F, I have been disgusted with the so called conservatism as well as the liberalism. Under Bush we got the unPatriot Act, the largest increase in government spending, the unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional anti-free markets bailouts, and more.

There are plenty of reasons to write off Obama after about one year. He has continued the socialism for Wall Street, he's multiplied the reckless spending, he has reappointed the neocon Robert Gates, and Ben Bernanke, he increased the unconstitutional Afgan war, and his economic policies are like Bush's, which will cause another major financial crisis in the near future, likely in the form of a currency crisis.

Another factor, Charles, is the very low interest rates the Fed gave us in the past couple of decades. That's the only way Clinton managed to get a surplus was with all that loose monetary policy. If the rates were at their real market levels right now the Dow Jones would likely be under 5,000.

Yeah, I heard about that too where the real Dow would be 5000 to 7500, I think Glenn Beck mentioned it plus I listen to WWCR on my shortwave radio (according to Obama, possession of one makes one a terrorist, I have 5 or 6) on 3215 kc. WWCR is World Wide Christian Radio.

Didn't Jefferson say something about the tree of liberty being watered by the blood of patriots?

If the government is wrong it is the duty of patriots to oppose that government.

In the case of this health care travesty the government is wrong.

TICA, I'm not certain, but some of the above might think you are a war mongering, government overthrowing, right wing lunatic, by actually quoting one of the founders. Gosh, it's horrible to not be PC, isn't it?
I decided that continuing to attempt talking with a certain person, was like arguing with a pig. It's not only a waste of time, but annoys heck outta the pig, too. :-)

too true. Some of these on line conversations can be alot of fun.

Tica, Tom Jefferson did sat that. I also agree with Dale using much the same analogy. Arguing with the barking moonbats is a lot like pig wrestling, you get dirty and the pig likes it. It might be fun for a round or two, but it gets to be a true time waster, time that could be put to better use.

Yes, that is why I go to work every day. That may also be why left wing loonies sit in front of their computers and tap away their pointless lives, while waiting for a government hand out ... and being righteously indignant that those of us who work have more goodies than they do.

There are plenty of liberals that work hard.

It is the liberals who weep and moan about those who have the NERVE to achieve the American Dream. They are the ones who seem outraged when someone achieves prosperity by virtue of their own efforts.

In their quest to prevent fraudulent business activity liberals unfortunately turn to penalizing productive activity through needless regulations and taxes.

R.F., you'll have to keep in mind who benefits from regulations, and that would be the big boys. These regulations are very expensive but big business can afford them; the little guys can't. It keeps out new competition, which in the end only benefits the big boys.

All the big regulations we've set up did not stop Bernie Madoff. They did not stop the recent financial crisis. Setting up another expensive set of regulations will not change anything for the better. The government needs to get out of the way and stop protecting Wall Street with all these unnecessary regulations. The free market will do a better job without discriminating against small business.

Can you name one single profitable American business today that liberals haven't complained about? Liberals even devoured one of their own with a pointless boycott ... you recall the founder of Whole Foods? He had the nerve to suggest that this health care bill could be reconsidered ... and the loonies on the left phonied up so much fact indignation for him suggesting that there might be other ideas to consider.

Seems that liberals hate ...
the big three auto manufacturers
WalMart
Any and All clothing manufacturers
Fast Food Chains
Dairy Farmers
Farmers who irrigate their crops
Fishermen who use deep sea nets
Oil Companies
Airlines
Drug Companies

All of these industries have been decried as evil creatures that you need the government to save you from.

With 10% unemployment... it would seem that the government is really saving us from the crime of having a good job. Don't you just love it!

Semantic babble.... WalMart is a business whose industry is retail merchandising. I don't see how what the government has done to the auto industry over the past thirty years is in the least bit effective or compassionate.... much less .... good business practice. The government cutting deal with pharmaceutical companies only proves that the government is extorting more control over these industries .... it does not disprove my point that liberals oppose those entities in this country that create wealth. Obama, in his efforts to impose more government control over our economy than any previous president certainly has NOT done ANYTHING right as regarding the economy.

Bailing out the big three has to do with ensuring our national security as well as our economy.

The bailouts were a huge mistake and only makes us less secure. We have made ourselves more vulnerable by holding so much debt.

The auto industry and government intervention began their poisonous dance in the mid sixties when Ralph Nader attacked the an American sports car for being unsafe. What followed were increasingly more strident demands from the American people and their elected representative that American cars be made stronger and safer. Seat belts became mandatory. Air bags became mandatory. Shock absorbing bumpers … ditto. Safety glass … ditto. All manner of safety features were engineered into ever larger and more expensive American cars.

And then the first oil embargo happened. Shazam!!! These very large and very safe automobiles were too expensive to drive … with gasoline costing over fifty cents a gallon. Yes, I can remember going out of my way to find forty cent a gallon gasoline. Cheap, small and fuel efficient cars flooded into this country from Japan, Korea and Europe. Remember all the lame jokes on the Johnny Carson show about Lee Iacocca and the collapsing auto industry?

Environmentalist got into the act, insisting that all cars be equipped with catalytic converters. Unleaded gasoline became the only fuel allowed to be sold in this country. Didn't the price of gasoline rise to nearly a dollar a gallon when that happened? These changes were demanded by our ever so foresighted government.

Seat belt laws are now in place. Mandatory auto insurance is now in place. SUV, probably the safest passenger cars on the road today, are demonized for being gas hogs. How the worm has turned. Thirty years ago, the auto makers could not build a car big enough or strong enough to satisfy the demands of our government. Now, any car built to the safety standards of the early eighties is deemed to be a threat to the planet. Yet … somehow … auto companies that complied with ever changing government demands are the bad guys … …. …. And the government that cannot come up with consistent standards for the automobile industry to comply with is heroically saving you from a capricious and greedy industry.

If the government would just stay out of our business, cars in the United States might have remained competitive on the world market … and the auto industries might not have had to be bailed out in the first place.

I cannot condone any talk of insurrection against our government. Those espousing such are walking on thin ice.

I truly hope that none here on Gather are actually entertaining such a thing. No good could possably come from it.

At least the bill has allows for people to be exempt on religious beliefs! As soon as it passes that is what I will do... fill out the form for the exemption.

I did not know that Sue. Well I am sure there will be a lot of exemptions filed!

I am not sure what this is supposed to cost but I already cannot afford to buy any insurance and so have none I don't even buy mor onw groceries of food. I trade babysitting for my daughter and she buys food. So it sounds like if you want insurance you have to pay for it. How much and how do those of us who already cannot afford it and don't have it pay for it or do we just get rounded up put in jail and the rest of you pay for our free medical care?

DO NOT vote ANY of them Democrate or Republican or whatever they are back into office. Put ALL NEW faces and people in there ALL NEW no old incumbants and tell the new ones to bad if they passed a law that was unconstitutional the very fact it is unconstitutinal means IT IS lllegal in the first place and therefore NOT a law and can be over turned, thrown out and whiole at it round up the treasonist and do with them what the constitution tells us to do with any who commit treason period.

Agreed Jennine it is time to dump career politicians.
Unconstitutional laws can either be repealed, thrown out by the SCOTUS, or nullified by the states.

Agreed. When you think about it, adding his service in the House, Robert C. Byrd has been in office since January 3rd, 1953, heck, that was at the close of the TRUMAN administration. My parents were teenagers then where now, they are senior citizens.

Byrd has been in there way too long! Our founding fathers never intended that a noble class rule us.

Term limits might bring some sanity back to Washington.

I'll agree there are some pretty solid arguments against them.

I'll never be suckered into the term limit idea as a solution for anything. Term limits limit only the choices of those casting the votes.

Good article, I'll print this and keep it next to my Glenn Beck book, Arguing with Idiots

Thanks Charles!

Ugh... this is all so overwhelming.

Yeah, but it’s important… a lot is at stake here.

Great post Matthew! What if number 4, I heard a Senator say it must be a fair respecter of persons, or something like that. Meaning, since they gave special deals to some states, that made it unconstitutional.?

Thanks Char! The special deals are definitely unconstitutional!

I recently heard about a medical travel plan and a high deductible health plan. The info I found to be interesting is that they both have a great propensity to save people money, and provide legitimate qualilty covergae. I would like to share the info I found to be highly useful, with a couple links below. I hope that this is able to help in the search for answers.

http://highdeductiblehealthplan.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/highdeductiblehealth

I HAVE a high-deductible health plan. The only reason it saves me money is that it also has a relatively low stop-loss. For most people, it would NOT save money, because they wouldn't use enough of the services.

Matthew - You have no idea how TIRED I get of amateur constitutional experts telling me that everything the federal courts have said is constitutional since 1964 is not.

1) The constitution doesn't give the federal government any role in highway construction either, but you probably drove on a federally funded road.
2) States rights - states don't have "rights." Only people have "rights." See Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3) I cannot imagine ANY healthcare reform that would satisfy you and your ilk.

States do (or did) have rights. Until the Senate went to public elections, a bad idea, IMHO, the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures themselves, This was to affirm the rights of the States. Plus the 10th Amendment also grants States rights where if the Constitution is silent on matters, then it is up to each State to decide for itself.