Can Congress force me to buy health insurance?

posted at 10:00 am on August 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

One of the more troubling components of the ObamaCare bill wending its way through the House is the inclusion of individual mandates to carry health insurance.  What gives Congress the power to dictate that choice to American citizens?  A single document enumerates Congressional power, and former Department of Justice attorneys David Rivkin and Lee Casey have some trouble finding that power in it.  They argue, with appropriate citations of precedent, that HR3200 and any other bill that attempts to impose mandates will violate the Constitution:

Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.

The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.

The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.

Most states now require drivers to have auto insurance before issuing drivers licenses, car registrations, or both.  However, that doesn’t apply here for three reasons.  First, that power rests with the individual states, as they are the licensing authorities and not the federal government.  Second, driving is not a right but a privilege, which gives access to state-owned roads in exchange for a demonstration of competence and appropriate safety and insurance preparation, so the state can and does set conditions on that privilege (too many, but that’s an argument for another day).  Third, because the insurance is conditioned on that privilege, it only affects a portion of the populace.  The states could not demand universal auto insurance on every man, woman, and child in their state.

But how about using the tax code to enforce the mandate?  Congress has the power to tax, as we know all too well, and they can create some severe penalties for failure to comply.  In fact, HR3200 does just that now.  However, as Rivkin and Casey explain, any tax that seeks to impose policy that goes beyond the limits of the Commerce Clause is also unconstitutional:

Like the commerce power, the power to tax gives the federal government vast authority over the public, and it is well settled that Congress can impose a tax for regulatory rather than purely revenue-raising purposes. Yet Congress cannot use its power to tax solely as a means of controlling conduct that it could not otherwise reach through the commerce clause or any other constitutional provision. In the 1922 case Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not impose a “tax” to penalize conduct (the utilization of child labor) it could not also regulate under the commerce clause. Although the court’s interpretation of the commerce power’s breadth has changed since that time, it has not repudiated the fundamental principle that Congress cannot use a tax to regulate conduct that is otherwise indisputably beyond its regulatory power.

In other words, individual mandates are unconstitutional, regardless of whether they’re explicit or buried in tax policy.

If that’s true, what happens to universal coverage?  It fails, because not everyone wants to buy health insurance now, and that’s likely to be more rather than less true after ObamaCare passes.  As we saw in Maine, when the government offers a public plan and forces community pricing and unrestricted access on private insurers, the people most likely to enroll will be the infirm, whose costs will unbalance the risk pools and drive up premiums across the board.  That will make insurance even more expensive, which will discourage rather than encourage enrollments, and do nothing at all to lower public costs of healthcare – the entire stated reason for ObamaCare, other than universal coverage.

The only way to get mandatory universal coverage is conversion to a single-payer system, which Congress also doesn’t have the power to do without amending the Constitution.  Otherwise, free will in a free system dictates that people will make choices with which many disagree, and that includes the choice not to buy health insurance.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

WH ADMITS using tax$ 2 hire private comm. Co. to distribute mass emails, incl. unsolic. spam 4 Obama HC http://snurl.com/qpzzq

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I wonder if we’ll even start seeing lower courts rule in opposition to established Supreme Ct. precedence. I don’t think there’s anything legal to stop it.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Well, actually…yes there is. Stare decisis. It’s why lawyers always defend their cases by saying things like: “Your honor, in Simpson v Griffin or “in Jetson v Flintstone… the court ruled…..bla bla bla…”

Fed45 on August 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Ever notice stare decisis is only applicable to liberal laws?

flyfisher on August 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Government mandated benevolence is nothing more than malevolence.

fourdeucer on August 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

I’m not sure. They may be able to do it. I can’t think of it happening anywhere though. Legally I guess they could justify pushing a mandate but politically it would be explosive.

elduende on August 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM

meant to say anywhere in Federal law.

elduende on August 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Of course the government can force you to do anything. Did you think you lived in Pre-Communst/Democrat free America?

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM

The only way to get mandatory universal coverage is conversion to a single-payer system, which Congress also doesn’t have the power to do without amending the Constitution.

If the government is paying for your healthcare, then it will be able to claim all sorts of power over you due to its fiscal interest in your health.

This is exactly the point of the public option: to force everyone into a system where the government pays for their healthcare, and therefore has all this power.

No, they can’t just pass a law requiring a single payer system directly. But they can force us to that point, if they can create just the right set of laws that leave us little or no choice.

Like destroying the private health insurance industry, for example.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on August 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I wonder if we’ll even start seeing lower courts rule in opposition to established Supreme Ct. precedence. I don’t think there’s anything legal to stop it.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Well, actually…yes there is. Stare decisis. It’s why lawyers always defend their cases by saying things like: “Your honor, in Simpson v Griffin or “in Jetson v Flintstone… the court ruled…..bla bla bla…”

Fed45 on August 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

How can that be true? Court decisions are often overturned by later courts as public attitudes change. Are you saying it would be illegal for a lower court to do so? I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem like a bad idea to me if so.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Buy Danish. I don’t know enough about the mandates
but…
On the mandates:
from the WSJ Article

This leaves mandate supporters with few palatable options. Congress could attempt to condition some federal benefit on the acquisition of insurance. States, for example, usually condition issuance of a car registration on proof of automobile insurance, or on a sizable payment into an uninsured motorist fund. Even this, however, cannot achieve universal health coverage. No federal program or entitlement applies to the entire population, and it is difficult to conceive of a “benefit” that some part of the population would not choose to eschew.

The other obvious alternative is to use Congress’s power to tax and spend. In an effort, perhaps, to anchor this mandate in that power, the Senate version of the individual mandate envisions that failure to comply would be met with a penalty, to be collected by the IRS. This arrangement, however, is not constitutional either.

elduende on August 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Ed, you are preaching to the choir, until we can get a case in front of a SCOTUS not pack with empathetic wise Latinas. Face it, the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch® As long as the Constitution is considered a living breathing document that takes into consideration our ever changing society, the SCOTUS is going to rubber stamp ObamaCare.

tommylotto on August 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

CO2MAKER on August 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM

That’s an angle I didn’t see before. Good show!

Problem is, everyone will eventually be forced onto the Plan and, thus, become a user.

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I wonder if we’ll even start seeing lower courts rule in opposition to established Supreme Ct. precedence. I don’t think there’s anything legal to stop it.
JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Ever notice stare decisis is only applicable to liberal laws?
flyfisher on August 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Nothing can stop the Supreme Court from making any decisions it wants to. They have the same right to formulate their own opinions of the “true meaning” of the Constition as would any group of nine old men in dresses sitting on a bench.

But ENFORCING those decisions is another matter entirely.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM

How can that be true? Court decisions are often overturned by later courts as public attitudes change. Are you saying it would be illegal for a lower court to do so? I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem like a bad idea to me if so.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I don’t believe lower courts have the authority to overturn upper court rulings. It’s whole basis around the appeals process. The appellate court either says “try again”, or “nope, you were wrong”

Fed45 on August 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

What is most fun is that Hamilton, himself, puts a pretty high standard on what to do if the system goes wrong. Not high as in ‘needs so many abuses’ but high in what WE are to do if the power we have granted has been so badly abused as to be a threat to the people. While he talks about the use of the military under Congress (or any part of the national government) his view on what to do and why is salient. From Federalist No. 26:

Is it presumable that every man the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

He sets this bar very high on what to do for two reasons. First, no Nation should be plunged into anarchy for mere transient reasons. Abuses must be sustained, deep, and threatening the very liberty of individuals with the abuses of government turned tyrannical.

(…)

ajacksonian on August 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Very interesting! That part, particularly, about citizens using existing counties to declare as new states in order for citizens to “manage their own concerns in person” is extraordinary an idea.

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Government mandated benevolence is nothing more than malevolence.

fourdeucer on August 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Hear, hear.

progressoverpeace on August 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM

WH ADMITS using tax$ 2 hire private comm. Co. to distribute mass emails, incl. unsolic. spam 4 Obama HC http://snurl.com/qpzzq

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM

BAST*RDS!

But thanks for that link…

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Perhaps Obama thinks our military lacks the testicular fortitude?

jhffmn on August 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

This is exactly why he wants his “civilian defense force” …he knows our oath is to the CONSTITUTION!

jwp1964 on August 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

BAST*RDS!

But thanks for that link…

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Capone was taken down on tax evasion. You never know what seemingly small thing can explode in Obama’s face, but I like looking.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Perhaps Obama thinks our military lacks the testicular fortitude?

jhffmn on August 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

This is exactly why he wants his “civilian defense force” …he knows our oath is to the CONSTITUTION!

jwp1964 on August 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Revolutionary Guard, anyone?

jwp1964: Thanks for serving!

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I don’t believe lower courts have the authority to overturn upper court rulings. It’s whole basis around the appeals process. The appellate court either says “try again”, or “nope, you were wrong”

Fed45 on August 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I’m not saying it properly. I didn’t really mean “overturn.” I meant rule in opposition to stare decisis, giving another opportunity for higher courts to re-visit the decision on appeal. As times and mores and attitudes change, I still can’t see how this won’t happen. In fact, I would suspect some courts are just itching for it to happen.

Anyway, I can’t helpfully add more. I missing any add’l facts to bolster my argument.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

The government plan ONLY works, in a medical or “health care” sense, for healthy people. But everyone at some time has some condition that requires greater application of treatment and expenditure of costs to treat.

Any insurance plan (health or otherwise) only works if only a small number people claim benefits at one time. NO PLAN can support a large number of enrolled members making large claim at the same time. NOT any government or the US government. The financial market meltdown was a close example when the housing market collapsed in a relatively short time. The way things are set up, there will be A LOT of claimants from the aging baby boomer population.

bayview on August 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

You all know that the big health insurance companies agreed to the outline of the Waxman bill precisely because of the individual mandate. That’s one reason why it is so laughable to see the Precedent and his state-run media whining about the insurance companies and claiming they are bakrolling the townhall protestors.

You cannot force private insurance companies to eover everyone with preexisting conditions without an individual mandate to buy insurance. Otherwise, there will be massive adverse selection as nobody in their right mind will buy insurance until they need it. I suppose private and public employers can still force employees to buy insurance by taking the premiums out of their paychecks, but millions of self-employed people and professionals who now buy individual insurance would surely drop it until they thought they were going to need it. That would screw up the risk pool and cause massive premium hikes.

Even the public option won’t work without an individual mandate. A public insurer would go broke very quickly if only the unhealthy people buy into it. The Dems are counting on a lot of the younger people who voted for Obama buying into the public plan though they are healthy and don’t really need much insurance.

The whole thing is a house of cards built on the individual mandate. If that is ruled unconstitutional, the entire edifice falls.

I’m not much of a constitutional scholar, but I fear this will be a closer call than most of you all think. Yes, the SCOTUS did throw out the Violence Against Women Act and part of McCain-Feingold. I’m sure there are slick Democrat lawyers working right now on the briefs to convince Anthony Kennedy that the individual mandate and the tax penalty are constitutional under the Commerce Clause. We know the four liberal Justices will agree with anything. And even Scalia is very deferential to Congress on most issues.

rockmom on August 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

When’s the awards ceremony for this Liars Contest?

Cybergeezer on August 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM

tuesday, January 20th, 2009.

hillbillyjim on August 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

As many have said, passing this health care ‘reform’ fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and government. When government assumes the power to regulate the health of citizens, we become the property of the state.

We become herd animals, and the government becomes the herder.

If we give up our individual freedom to live as we wish in exchange for ‘protection’ we become something less than a free people.

Skandia Recluse on August 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

You’d think after a certain Honduras President’s foray into constitutional disregard, Obama would be a bit wary.

Perhaps Obama thinks our military lacks the testicular fortitude?

jhffmn on August 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

My thoughts exactly. Hey Obama,you want to turn us into a 3rd world country so bad? We can do that.
Sleep in something more butch than the Batman jammies with the feet.You never know!

katy the mean old lady on August 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

But ENFORCING those decisions is another matter entirely.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM

I believe there was only one time in US history when a SCOTUS decision wasn’t enforced, and then only for a few years.

Congress should be able to address this by offering individual deductions for private insurance that offset any tax for the public plan. This would help those who don’t want insurance tied to their job and also allow people to shop between a government plan and a private plan.

dedalus on August 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Skandia Recluse on August 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Just look at the sheeple in the UK to see our future.

London – In Manchester, Britain’s third largest city with half a million people, residents will begin carrying electronic tracking tags that log how far they run or cycle each day. The tag will even help track how many calories residents burn. Those who hit the running trail every morning will be rewarded with coupons at stores and even days off work.

elduende on August 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM

You’d think after a certain Honduras President’s foray into constitutional disregard, Obama would be a bit wary.

Perhaps Obama thinks our military lacks the testicular fortitude?

jhffmn on August 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Barak Obama is terrified of the US Army, and rightfully so. He’s basically letting it run open-loop so far.

All that crap Obama said about creating a competing force is a (crack) pipe dream. An SS-style organization can act as a bodyguard, but there’s no way it can enforce civil control without the support of the army. At some point, liberal Socialists always have to co-opt, purge or at the very least drastically defund the existing military organizations.

It’s Barak Obama who’s going to have to show some balls. And so far, nothing he’s done in his entire life indicates he has that ability.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

“What gives Congress the power to dictate that choice to American citizens?”

Good question……..

Seven Percent Solution on August 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

myrenovations on August 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM

If they can’t walk and talk they can’t vote and spread fishy information.

FontanaConservative on August 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Another thing I think liberals are missing entirely is how much of our population now is working outside of the taxable economy. A relative of mine has not filed a federal or state tax return for 35 years. There are millions like this person, and there will be millions more by the time this Congress meets its Waterloo next year. People are resourceful and are avoiding taxation in droves. It’s a huge reason why federal revenues have tanked even more than would have been predicted simply by the unemployment numbers.

Most of these folks don’t have health insurance, but they pay cash when they go to the doctor or hospital. Many of them are not poor and can afford the best health care, they simply pay cash for it. Most doctors will happliy discount their services for cash.

There is no way to force such people to buy health insurance, except to make it a federal crime to pay or accept cash for health services. I would love to see Congress try that one. And there is no way to effectively tax these people, because they aren’t on the tax rolls now and the government can’t find them.

rockmom on August 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Skandia Recluse on August 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Just look at the sheeple in the UK to see our future.

London – In Manchester, Britain’s third largest city with half a million people, residents will begin carrying electronic tracking tags that log how far they run or cycle each day. The tag will even help track how many calories residents burn. Those who hit the running trail every morning will be rewarded with coupons at stores and even days off work.

elduende on August 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Anyone who does not see the evil in this is a waste of air.

jwp1964 on August 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Maybe the British were on to something when they burned Washington back during the War of 1812.

jimmy2shoes on August 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I will not submit…

d1carter on August 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Gee, if someone had earlier pointed that out … uh … uh …

corona on August 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

I’m not saying it properly. I didn’t really mean “overturn.” I meant rule in opposition to stare decisis, giving another opportunity for higher courts to re-visit the decision on appeal. As times and mores and attitudes change, I still can’t see how this won’t happen. In fact, I would suspect some courts are just itching for it to happen.

Well, yes they likely can. And yes it would likely be appealed. Then yes, the hope is a new bench would rule differently. The is this is the hope around Roe v Wade

Fed45 on August 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

OT: on the general lousiness of Obamacare, here’s a quote from James Madison. Applicable here?

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. —James Madison.

BuckeyeSam on August 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM

If this sham passes. People need to resist. I will not co-operate.

JellyToast on August 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

…At some point, liberal Socialists always have to co-opt, purge or at the very least drastically defund the existing military organizations…

logis on August 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Crap, am I ever getting new perspectives here. No wonder I love HA and the people here except the libs (excepting AnninCA in that)

A perfect storm! Take out the military, which is voluntary and mostly conservative (liberals NEVER sign up), and replace it with ‘national volunteers.”

You might be onto something worth considering.

~kudos~

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM

For a constitutional law professor, Obama sure is a dope. He is shredding the constitution.

TXMomof3 on August 22, 2009 at 10:59 AM

He may be a dope, but he doesn’t act the way he does because he fails to understand the Constitution. He simply does not want to be constrained by the Constitution. He said the following:

“To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution

He believes the government needs to break free from the constraints of the Constitution in order to achieve social justice.

Prediction: There is going to be a power battle between his Czars and the Congress. He will attempt to strip Congress of its power by circumventing it with Czar power.

If my prediction comes true, then the results of the 2010 election may not matter. He will start implementing public policy and laws by executive order.

Daggett on August 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

London – In Manchester, Britain’s third largest city with half a million people, residents will begin carrying electronic tracking tags that log how far they run or cycle each day. The tag will even help track how many calories residents burn. Those who hit the running trail every morning will be rewarded with coupons at stores and even days off work.

elduende on August 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM

So attach the damn thing to a bullet train and retire.

Patrick S on August 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM

That would be interesting.Try to replace our military with ACORN Army? Nope, don’t think that will turn out well.

katy the mean old lady on August 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Has anyone ever bought a health insurance policy directly from an insurance company? It is slightly more effecient than going through your employer. You sign up, your told that your covered, and so you go to your doctors appointment. Give them your insurance number and then a month later, your billed for it because insurance says they don’t have you on record. So you argue and finally get it straightened out.

Now we are suppose to believe that if we introduce the government, that bastion of effeciency, into the mix that everything will work sooooo much more smoothly?

Oh ya, I’m ALL for that. /sarc

PappaMac on August 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM

So attach the damn thing to a bullet train and retire.

Patrick S on August 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

“3 minutes to liftoff and counting.”

“Sir… what are all those tags hanging from the Space Shuttle?”

Daggett on August 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Well, how can this be? After all as we have been told time and again, Barack Obama is a constitutional expert..so how is it that this could have escaped his attention?

Terrye on August 22, 2009 at 1:04 PM

DerKrieger on August 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Thanks, you made my point in a clearer way. Appreciate it.

milwife88 on August 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

I’ve got a question. Can the government force me to give more than the # of people living in my house when the ACORN goons come around with the census. That’s all I answered last time so they sent someone around and I threw them off my property.

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Well, how can this be? After all as we have been told time and again, Barack Obama is a constitutional expert..so how is it that this could have escaped his attention?

Terrye on August 22, 2009 at 1:04 PM

See my post above. Even if he really is a Constitutional expert, he’s just using his expertise to figure out how to get past the Constitutional constraints.

Daggett on August 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Can the government force me to give more than the # of people living in my house when the ACORN goons come around with the census. That’s all I answered last time so they sent someone around and I threw them off my property.

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

That’s all I plan to give.

Daggett on August 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Interestingly, Mitt Romney did the same thing: mandated everyone buy insurance, then trumpeted the fact that everyone was covered by his “reform.” It’s the one reason I could never stomach Mitt. The government does not exist to tell me what to buy. It exists solely to protect my individual rights.

shawk on August 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Roe Vs Wade secured the constitutional right to privacy between a citizen and their doctor – didn’t it?

Don L on August 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

katy the mean old lady on August 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Not ACORN, per se.

It’s not widely known but Putin has been sending adolescents to camps to teach them about sex to reverse Russia’s negative-population growth. The idea, a la Hitler Jungend, is to increase the population. I read a piece on this years ago, and don’t know what more can back me on the one piece I read. But think about it, please:

Volunteering for America is great, right? But that’s not taught in public schools or colleges. There, students are taught to hate America for racial, sexist, and environmental reasons among so many other ’causes’.

Now, to ‘volunteer’, we open camps if even for summer. This isn’t the Peace Corp, where willing students were trained to go to a Third World country to build schools, dig wells for fresh water, and teach rotation of crops.

In the name of ‘volunteering for America’, kids are sent to camps for what might be more intensive indoctrination–like ignoring their parents. Some of this has already been at least suggested and put into practice on however small a level.

Defund the military, and who can keep order in a crisis except those volunteers?

Machiavelli is well-studied across the board, Right and Left. We’re focused on external threats, while the Left pays lip-service to those internal.

If the ballon of revolution goes up, and there’s no national army to protect the Nation, who else would be the Left’s force to ‘preserve the Republic’?

Just an idea.

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Key here is that the Congress, and Courts, have destroyed the “Right to Petition for Redress”…

The Congress passed laws saying it, nor the Administration, could be sued if they were trying to do their jobs…

And the Courts, through the weird ideas of Standing, have made it very hard to even ask the Courts about Constitutional issues.

Add in the changes in the historical roll of Grand Jurys… where once seated they were empowered to investigate… not just rule on what a Prosecutor tells them…

Face it folks… we the people have lost the Legal means of enforcing the Constitution… the Government decided IT would be the arbitrator of what the Constitution said… and thus continues to abuse it to gain more power… in all branches.

I mean, when we can’t even ASK for a definition from the Supremes about what constitutes a “Natural Born Citizen”… because we lack “standing”… the right to petition for redress no longer exists.

Romeo13 on August 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I think the outcome of this struggle is going to boil down to the 2nd amendment. That’s the one big difference between the USA and other countries that imposed socialism and fascism on its people, right? Or am I missing something?

Daggett on August 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM

the right to petition for redress no longer exists.

Romeo13 on August 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Respectfully…No, we haven’t. We won’t lose it unless and until DC manages to take our right to vote. And that won’t happen until the ballot box is removed from American society and they take all our guns.

Be positive! We can win this. It’s going to take a fight, which is okay.

I won’t surrender. God Himself gives me my liberty, and no mere man can take that away. And if I have to die to prove it, my life is forfeit.

“I regret that I have but one life to give for my Country.”

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Don L asked: “Roe Vs Wade secured the constitutional right to privacy between a citizen and their doctor – didn’t it?”

Indeed it did, Don. Not just the federal govt but govt at all levels is thereby Constitutionally forbidden from intruding on the patient-doctor relationship. No determining efficacy. No setting standards of care. Just butt out, sit down, shut up, you pols.

Chaz on August 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM

As many have said, passing this health care ‘reform’ fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and government. When government assumes the power to regulate the health of citizens, we become the property of the state.
Skandia Recluse on August 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

And so many more previously insane liberal arguments are thereby legislated into “common sense.”

I can’t smoke because it costs all of us money. I can’t eat what I want because that infringes on my neighbor’s rights…

We become herd animals, and the government becomes the herder.

I know for a fact because I was raised on a farm: what liberals advocate are not human rights; they are cattle rights.

A cow has the right to be fed, the right to medical treatment, the right to a place to be kept safe from predators…

In fact, the whole concept of human rights – plural – is a misnomer. There is really only one human right; and it can be boiled down into: “The Right To Not Be Screwed With As Long As You Don’t Screw With Anyone Else.”

And liberals live for no reason but to deprive all humans of that right.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM

From the Lopez case:

“Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Perez v. United States, supra, at 150; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., supra, at 276-277. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. See, e.g., Darby, 312 U. S., at 114; Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, at 256 (” `[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.’ ” (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491 (1917)). . Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activitiesSee, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 (“[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32), or . . . thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659)”). Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U. S., at 37, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27.

In this case, if federal co-ops or the public option are used, they would fall under the second point, not the third one. And the mandate to purchase insurance would be connected with them, and so should be covered in that way as well.

Additionally, a Supreme Court decision in about 1940 (United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944)) reversed an earlier decision and said that federal regulation of insurance was permitted by the Commerce Clause. Congress then pass a bill in the late 1940s to allow state regulation of insurance. If Congress could Consitutionally pass a bill (the McCarran-Ferguson Act) in the 40s to allow that, they can regulate insurance at the federal level.

Jimbo3 on August 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

The Founders gave us a Republic. A Government run on the rule of law. It was built so that even ONE single person could ask their government what the heck it was doing.

It was NOT built to be a strict Democracy, as in a democracy the masses can dictate the rules.

Yes, they put in place a way to change the Constitution… but made it pretty difficult to do…

Yes, we still have the vote… but when the only viable choices between the two parties are Big Spenders, vs Bigger spenders…. between one Group using the unconstituional power of Gov to tell us what to do, vice another Party doing the same thing?

Heck, I still can’t figure out how Cash for Clunkers got past a Constitutional question… it was not “Equal” as only people who could buy cars could use it, it did not use the Tax system to redistribute that wealth, and had NOTHING to do with “Regulating” interstate Commerce…

Romeo13 on August 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM

What difference does this make?

Democrats always interpret the laws in ways they want.

That’s why they need stupid, affirmative action type judges like Sotomeyor.

She’ll do what they tell her and hallucinate a “right” to be forced to buy health insurance, into the Constitution.

NoDonkey on August 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Romeo13 on August 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I’m on your side totally, I assure!

The right to petition redress for grievences still exists

(apologies–the font size keep getting smaller and smaller here)

The way these things happen is b/c people are letting it happen. I launch that reason against the MSM, who has failed it’s job for the people.

But, we still have a vote and, by the IX Amendment, we still retain authority. Maybe it’s time for a third party, one that appeals to the people.

Sadly, tho, the people vote Dem or Rep.

A hard fight, to be sure. But not impossible so far as we retain our rights.

Cash for Clinkers ‘passed’ Constitutional muster because NO ONE in place to do so asked.

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Romeo13 on August 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM

More, if you please?

The media were designed to be a barrier between government and the people. In our time, the MSM has sided with one part of government: Democrats.

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Roe Vs Wade secured the constitutional right to privacy between a citizen and their doctor – didn’t it?

Don L on August 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Now wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony? The libs would truly be “hoisted with their own petard”

Fed45 on August 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Roe Vs Wade secured the constitutional right to privacy between a citizen and their doctor – didn’t it?

Don L on August 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

It was one earlier, someone vs Conn. I can’t recall the title of the case but it involved sale of contraceptives.

What happened was some activists forced a situation where sale of condoms was disallowed by CT law to make a SCOTUS case tho most pharmacies ignored the law. They found a place that followed that State law and brought suit.

That is where the right to privacy started, which result in R v Wade.

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Don L on August 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Maybe it was Griswold vs Conn? I forget the specifics.

Liam on August 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Can Congress force me to buy health insurance?

…I think you meant to ask MAY Congress force me to buy health insurance? As in, are they permitted to do so by the United States Constitution.

You see, when you say CAN they do it, you are asking whether it is physically possible for them to do so.

…And, btw, the answer to both questions is no.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Actually, the answer is “yes” to both. Congress CAN and MAY force all U.S. residents and citizens to “enroll in” (pay for) the government plan by one means or another, such as fining those who refuse to (already being discussed by Congress, that fining process)….

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

No.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Don’t forget that the SCOTUS case of Griswold v. Connecticutt got Bork Borked! Thank you, Lion of the Senate and Driver’s Ed teacher emeritus.

CO2MAKER on August 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Keep your laws off my body.

baldilocks on August 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM

The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,”

But, Ed, when Weiner said health care was not a “commodity”, you blasted him for it. When I tried to point out that “commodity” has several different meanings, for at least one of which his statement was at least arguably true, you wouldn’t hear of it. You asserted the right to choose which meaning of the word applied, and his intent (which we’ll never know, because Scarborough repeatedly cut him off when he tried to complete that thought) be damned.

So, by your own logic, health care is a commodity, and we all either produce, distribute, or consume it in some fashion or other. Even when we simply choose to eat a healthier diet or get some exercise, we’re caring for our own health, consuming the very thing we produce. Isn’t “prosumption” precisely what Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich were about?

Personally, I think both of those cases were wrongly decided by SCOTUS. I can’t begin to see how wheat consumed in the same state (much less on the same farm) it was grown in could be part of “interstate commerce”, nor do I see where Congress has authority to regulate intrastate transactions in MJ, any more than it can “intoxicating spirits” now that the amendment giving it that power has been repealed.

The 10th Amendment would make all of this clearly out of bounds, were it not for the 16th and 17th robbing it of any power it may once have had.

The Monster on August 22, 2009 at 3:05 PM

The way things are set up, there will be A LOT of claimants from the aging baby boomer population.

bayview on August 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

The way Obamacare is attempting to “set up,” there will be a whole lotta’ union members forcing the general taxpayers to pay for their members, particularly the early-retired (50 and up) among union members that the unions themselves don’t want to pay as per their promises to do so to those members (so they’re attempting to force the taxpayers overall to pay for their 50+ members/early retirees’ medical care).

Also the illegal alien population, anywhere from 15 to 20+ million people (AND their families), who, though Obama tries to step around this, are, indeed, responsible for ruining the U.S. healthcare system (greatly) and who are being attempted to now be insured by the taxpayers if Obama, Pelosi, etc. get their way.

And those ^^ at the expense of the very lives of American citizens who have already worked, paid into Medicare their entire lifetimes (by now for most of them or soon to be for the rest).

Obama’s ruined ethics in this “healthcare reform” plan involve selecting against American citizens ages 1-2 and 50+ (and on up) — depriving them of medical care that today they can obtain without regard for their ages as to whether or not they receive that care or not — in order to include union members whose unions don’t want the financial burden of providing them care, for illegal aliens and for the Leftwing runover groups beyond those who don’t want to buy their own, private insurance.

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Rockmom 12:24 is correct on the relationship of individual mandate and coverage despite preexisting conditions. She is also correct about this being a close issue at SCOTUS someday. See Erikson v. Aetna and Warren-Guthrie v. Health Net, California cases, in which courts accepted the argument that health care plans necessarily impact interstate commerce.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM

No.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Congress (the current rendition) has already well indicated it’s intent to (that means, they CAN) force Americans into O’s plan by one means or another — most of that by “fining” people for not joining and by charging higher fees, etc., than are necessary for those who do join.

So, yes, from the look of the current intent by the current Congress, they most definitely intend TO “force” consumers into the O plan. It’s a case of how they will, not IF they will or CAN (they CAN as communicated by the “force” term — it’s up to Congress to abide by our Constitution, if they don’t enforce it or ascribe to it’s conditions, then, this is the same as there not being any Constitution in terms of practical, behavioral deeds; Congress can do whatever it decides to do, and once the Constitutional ethics and requirements are abandoned/ignored, there’s nothing to prevent abuse ["force"] by a corrupted Congress and/or Executive Branch).

My point is that they can and may, either/or, depending on their respect and honor of Constitutional ethics, requirements, standards, declarations. All any (corrupt) Congress has to do is ignore the conditions the Constitution creates and addresses and in doing so, they CAN and very well MAY do whatever they want to.

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM

How do they get away with Soc Sec and Medicare? Is that not the same thing?

Conservative Voice on August 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM

The horse left the gate years ago, when states started forcing people to buy car insurance and nobody blinked.

rightwingprof on August 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Can Congress force me to buy health insurance?

Can the people force congress to obey the constitution?
Do the words “We the People” have any meaning at all today???

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

The question really is,,, can the people force the government to obey the founding documents of the nation??? Can the people force the government to obey the laws already made???

JellyToast on August 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM

How do they get away with Soc Sec and Medicare? Is that not the same thing?

FDR packed the court and threatened to appoint additional supreme court justices beyond the current nine members.

Also, just a guess at the justifications that ended up working in combination with the threats to the court:

- Social Security is a tax and Congress has the power to tax and to spend
- Medicare is voluntary. You’re not obligated to be involved in it. You’re obligated to pay the tax.

My guess is that Congress will get around the Constitutionality by using a proxy to force you to act according to their diktats. They’ll either force or bribe the states to do their dirty work, or force or bribe employers, or simply prohibit any other medical care than the care which they control. Another possibility is to use their control of banks to prohibit banking for the uninsured.

(The fact that Congress consistently tries to circumvent the Constitution this way makes me want to spend the afternoon shopping for an assault rifle.)

Kohath on August 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM

The Declaration if Independence could be written today. As it is, the Declaration and our Constitution are close to becoming treasonous documents on their own.
They cannot continue to exist in any form as law to this land while we simultaneously are pushed down this road to socialism/marxism.
We can delude ourselves all we want to,, but this document is at direct odds with those who are in power today in this nation.

JellyToast on August 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Regarding MB4′s excellent comments at 4:12: There are multiple special panels and grants in the health care bill that relate to giving special care and attention to those beneficiaries of the health care bill who do not speak english, or who do not speak it well, and to the communities of those people. I have not seen a compilation of all of those provisions.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Every single one of our Constitutional rights are being weakened.
.
If we think of the Obama administration (with twice as many czars as cabinet member positions) as termites, almost invisibly eating away at the studs inside the walls of our houses.
.
We’ve all been reading (right here at HotAir) how Obama-termites are chewing through our freedom of speech, right to assemble (think SEIU thugs), our right to lawfully elect our leaders (ACORN’s fake voters & The New Black Panthers with nightsticks at our polling places without consequence), our privacy (I especially like that section of Obamacare where the gov’t creates a direct line to our bank accounts)
.
They do all this while surreptitiously gaining access to our email accounts and creating a militia and taking over our banking institutions, some of our salaries and trying to crush dissent and limit citizens’ right to bear arms.
.
Very few of us can see the entire picture ALL AT ONCE of the cummulative damage the “government termites” are doing- it is too vast and too complicated to wrap our minds around, as is their plan.
.
But, once the termites chew through enough studs, all it will take is a good push and our homes will fall around us and we will have nothing left – no money, no guns, no food, no shelter, no voice.

NightmareOnKStreet on August 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM

The good news is some of us have noticed the evidence they inevitably leave behind (mud trails in the form of sloppy secret-keeping and stupidly underestimating our love of country) and are turning out in large numbers to stop the destruction.
.
To our advantage, Obama, etc. have NEVER known how passionately we feel about being FREE. The withering, angry, petulant look on his face lately tells us that he knows NOW.
.
The Constitution is not a pick and choose buffet. If we make any part of it irrelevant for any reason and choose to ignore the lawful method (followed for 230 years) to allow for it’s change, we do so at our nation’s peril.
.
America, as a sovereign nation, will cease to exist if we do not follow the laws that made us so. UNTIL AND UNLESS WE AS A NATION choose to LAWFULLY AMEND OR ABOLISH IT, the Constitution stands.

NightmareOnKStreet on August 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Average Americans fail to understand the enormous ramifications of 400,000 anchor babies born within the United States annually. They swamp our hospitals, ER wards and school systems. They cost taxpayers billions for ‘free’ breakfasts and lunches along with English as a Second Language classes. Most of them flunk out of high schools, at which point, they either become pregnant themselves or join gangs. As they turn to the dark side, they fill our prison systems.

MB4 on August 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM

That is too broad a swipe. How the illegal aliens fare in the country after they got in illegally vary greatly if you break them down according to country of origin. A very high number of children of illegal aliens from China become outstanding students and successful, law abiding, contributing citizens. I am not condoning the illegal act of the illegal alien parents, but your statement did oversimplify.

bayview on August 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM

If my prediction comes true, then the results of the 2010 election may not matter. He will start implementing public policy and laws by executive order.

Daggett on August 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

If that happens I guess those of us to took an oath to the constitution may have to get involved. I don’t predict our decisions going heavily in his favor.

jwp1964 on August 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM

I am not condoning the illegal act of the illegal alien parents, but your statement did oversimplify.

bayview on August 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM

You are sounding like Krauthammer to Palin. You seem to largely agree but just don’t like the way I [actually, more specifically, the author of the linked article] said it.

MB4 on August 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM

The question really is,,, can the people force the government to obey the founding documents of the nation??? Can the people force the government to obey the laws already made???
JellyToast on August 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM

What do you mean, hold guns to Congress’ heads and tell them what to do? That would defeat the whole purpose of having a government in the first place.

Of course we can’t force the government to do anything. All we can do is dismantle it and start over again.

The first American Revolution’s rally cry was: “No taxation without representation!”

This time it will be: “No representation without taxation!”

It’s two sides of the same coin.

logis on August 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM

When did a little thing like the Constitution stop these jerks from passing what ever they want to.

thmcbb on August 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM

With all due respect, I think there is too much discussion over where the deck chairs should be placed on the Titanic.

The American people have lost sight of the fact that the Constitution established a separation of power between the States and their federal government. James Madison explained this principle in Federalist Essay No. 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security.

The federal government was empowered to deal with foreign affairs and relations between the States while the States would concern themselves with domestic affairs. The last time I checked health care did not fall in the class of powers granted to the federal government as stated by Madison.

The health care bill any way you cut it violates this principle and is fatally defective. No law passed by Congress can change this principle. No existing provision in the Constitution can be invoked to change this principle. None of the delegated powers can be invoked to circumvent this principle. This is the key. Everything after this is simply a debate over the details of another usurpation of power.

Note-For those interested in more info about the General Welfare provision, go to the Tenth Amendment Center and read “Congress: A Wealth Eating Virus.”

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/04/congress-a-wealth-eating-virus/

Skylolo on August 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM

You seem to have forgotten that the living, breathing Constitution means whatever 9 people decide it means. What is written is seemingly irrelevant. What do the courts in Zimbabwe think of universal health care? That’s what’s important in 2009.

Sheerq on August 22, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Second, driving is not a right but a privilege, which gives access to state-owned roads

Now wait just a baraking wee-weed minute!

Jefferson would pop several caps for that statement.

- The Cat

MirCat on August 22, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Do you already pay a FCC Authorized Charge for Network Access on your monthly phone bill?

Are you required to buy a toilet that uses 1.6 gpf which clogs your pipes?

Is you shower head restricted to a gummint regulated water usage rate?

Our so-called system of laws generally does what it damn well pleases to serve itself foremost. Not the public good. It takes something like health care for more of the public to snap awake long enough to realize that gummint wouldn’t mind regulating your lifespan and life quality just like a toilet flow rate. Just another number to keep some pencil squid employed at a make-work job in DC.

The Founding Fathers would projectile vomit at the sight of what our courts have permitted to be done to their Constitution and how preservation of those rights have been unwisely entrusted to rejects, activists and illiterates like Souter, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

viking01 on August 22, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Here’s something to consider. The Amish do not do health insurance at all; or any insurance for that matter. That was their way out of Social Security. They were exempted on relegious grounds as SS was a form of insurance. This raises a few questions.

Will the Amish now be forced to participate in Obamacare?

If so, would it not violate their freedom of religion? If not would excluding them now discriminate against all other Americans for NOT being Amish?

MikeA on August 22, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Can Congress force me to buy health insurance?

you ask
The Congress CAN”T ( WON”T )do that to you if you are one or more of the following :
Illegal alien
Criminal illegal alien
Anchor baby
Union member ( SEIU)
Cholo/Chola
Represented by any race based action group (LaRaza, PRLDF)
But you are scroood if you are legal resident/citizen with a job/ business, pay taxes ,take care of your family and never even had a parking ticket in your life. This is the exact type of people that keep bringing up that pesky constitution thingy into this debate.Who needs people like these ? Not the Huss or his minions

The objectives of this so called reform ( sarc.) are :

1. Cut medicare spending for seniors ( so they exit faster and sooner ) to use the resulting savings for funding abortions. DEATHS all around…yaaay
2. Since AMNESTY could not make it through the Congress,
call it HEALTH-CARE and get it this time. Why do you think ACORN, LaRaza, LULAC, PRLDF, SEIU and even Geraldo Rivera are campaigning for it?

macncheez on August 22, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Mike A, that’s an interesting idea to me, as my ex-inlaws are Amish. Hard-core, no electricity, no cars Amish. I cannot imagine how they would function in this type of a system. They don’t even do the census, for the most part, and most have unlisted addresses. It is very hard to find them if you wanted to. I can’t picture their whole way of life being disrupted in this way. They are very much into homeopathic meds. They are massive vitamin takers, and big into chiropractics.They only go to the DR as a last resort.

di butler on August 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM

When did a little thing like the Constitution stop these jerks from passing what ever they want to.

thmcbb on August 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Constitution of the USA is the document which gives constitutional rights to the following :
Terrorists, Illegal Aliens, Congress and anyone and everyone who wants to pillage, loot, hurt, maim, behead and kill American citizens.

macncheez on August 22, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4