Another one to think about
The usage and meaning of words changes over time, and not for the better sometimes… I understand that back in the 18th century the word “regulate” meant something a bit different that it does today. Like the preamble clause to the second amendment “well regulated militia” didn’t mean “government controlled”, rather “properly trained and equipped”. Similarly, the commerce clause meant that no state could apply tariffs or rules on goods from another state. “Feature creep” lives in government too. ;-/ I’m 99.9% convinced it’s time to take Jefferson’s ideas on arborculture into practice.
A modest proposal:
Every state should adopt the following amendment to their constitutions.Whereas the US constitution grants certain powers to the federal government, it reserves all others to the state or the people.
Whereas the federal government has ignored this for many years, the state of (whatever) reclaims it’s rights under that same document.
Therefore no law or regulation passed by the federal government shall be enforceable within the boundaries of the state of (whatever) unless:a. It contains a clause clearly explaining how every provision is justified by the Constitution of the United States.
b. The people of the state of (whatever) accept this explanation by means of their State Legislature
c. A referendum of the people may overturn the decision of the State Legislature.Whereas the federal government may attempt to coerce the state into compliance by financial or other means, the State shall have the right to withhold federal taxes from entities within the state, seize federal property or arrest persons acting to further this coercion.
Whereas the federal courts represent a clear conflict of interest, disputes over actions taken in the name of this amendment shall not be adjudicated there.------------------------------------------
Not that it will happen.... I just needed to Vent!
the only complaint with the commerce clause argument is that the fed will work a way around that no matter what the restrictions are. already they are suggesting that since medical supplies and utilities are purchased from other states by hospitals and doctors, then the process of transporting those supplies between states opens commerce clause regulation. Also the Court established the “substantial effect” test in 1947 (?) with the Wickard case in which they ruled that any activity having a substantial effect on interstate commerce was available for regulation by the government. In that case it was 11 some-odd acres of grain grown by a private farmer for private consumption; the health care industry, insurers included, obviously have more impact on the economy of the nation than did that rural farmer. I’m certianly not arguing that this bill is constitutional and shouldn’t be fought; it is and it will be. I’m simply saying that commerce clause arguments are not likely to be the winning play. Also the idea that opening insurance for purchase across state lines would lower costs and increase competition is a sound one, and since the fed will get their grubby little hands on this through the commerce clause regardless we ought to let the free market work and employ solutions that deregulate insurance. Then all that remains is to craft a valid argument against the constitutionality of the bill without relying on the commerce clause. the 10th amendment is a good place to start, supported by state police powers and their inherent role.
Cory
Posted by Risk
03/24/2010 at 09:45 AM
Remember folks...Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Associate Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy...are more than a little pissed off at what Президент Оба́ма did to them at the SOO speech. Keep that in mind when Оба́маcare goes to court.
Personally, I like the idea of being able to deal with any insurance company in the country. I never understood why insurance seemed to be about the only thing that didn’t get sold coast-to-coast. Companies such as Farmer’s Insurance or State Farm seem to operate nationally, why not the rest of them?
Anyway....
Changes are coming. What they’ll be and how far will they go is another question. Yeah the questions is ballots or torches. The bigger question is how will the majority of the public react when the time comes. I can’t forget that Obama won (with Acorn’s help) a clear majority of the public vote. Stop and think about how many mistakes smart people make and then remember two things. The average I.Q. is 100 and half of the population is dumber than that.
One of the more interesting comments I’ve read is how with the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate all in Democratic hands, Pelosi should have been able to get almost any legislation passed as a matter of course. Why she’s being hailed as a hero is beyond me. Go back to my comment on the average I.Q.
While I am down due to the complete corruptness that was necessary (so then explain how this was a ‘mandate’, a will of the ‘majority’ and other such lies - when bribes, back room deals and a Sunday vote with twisted arms and vague promises (more lies) to get it passed?!! - Most especially when you have such a majority?) Thus to me since Nov 2008 - the US Congress and POTUS have just been a fraud in every way possible and thus every piece of legislation is a fraud.
What I love about this is two fold - the Dems have proven that they are not willing to debate (and The Won started it in the first week with his ‘I won’ comment to Republicans) and that given the majority - they are about complete and utter control (please see Rep Dingle’s remark to Paul W on WJR on Tuesday) - ‘to control the people’ being the key phrase!!!
So the backlash - and anyone who knows any physics and human nature - will be just as extreme - as We The People need to make sure that these destructors of everything American never, ever get to the seat of power again.
The loony left also made another vital (and hopefully fatal mistake) - They are celebrating winning a ‘hundred year struggle’ - thinking they won the war - They are sadly mistaken - they won a battle and have awaken (again) the same sleeping giant that the radical islamic terrorists awakened on September 11, 2001 -
And Remember what happened after that.
Not all Revolutions end in bloodshed - To the Courts people - Put these vile shredders of our beloved Constitution in jail where they belong.
Or at least overturn their un-Constitutional legislation.
JimS, that was awesome. I hope you don’t mind my clipping and sending that to my state legislators.
cmblake6, Thanks… send away.
Although you might want to consider this one :
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/
which arrived in my email today. It’s much better written, at least from a legalese point of view. It is just limited to the health care bill, and I’d rather see a more general assertion…
