A couple of hors d’eovers before the main course…. ~  ~  ~ Bear in mind before you watch this vid that this pathetic wretch is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:     Leaky is asked by what constitutional authori…

nelsonknows on October 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is a crime.

Leahy is such a jerk. I have zero respect for Vermont voters.

TERM LIMITS!!!

The Constitution? Quite surprized Leahy failed to mention HE WON THE NOBEL PRIZE!!!! We must obey.

So Leahy’s “answer” is an utter failure.

Greg Q on October 22, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Obviously they consider themselves royalty and us as their subjects.

amr on October 22, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Origionaly the Senate were the direct representatives of the States… but they changed that in the early 1900s… just one of the mistakes we made in changing a very well balanced origional document…

We have allowed the Federal Government to determine its own Powers for much too long. We trust it, through seperation of powers, to police itself… but… EVERY Government every will always try to gain more power for itself, its in the nature of Government.

Its time for the people to trim back the Power of the Fed… may be done by the States… may be done by the people, but it must happen or we are doomed to be ruled by a tyranical Federal Government.

Our citizens need to emulate the Tennessee Tax Revolt but go a bit further; surround OUR Capitol and shutdown OUR two Houses until OUR employees pledge to do what we, the majority, want; stop spending and taxing and abandon unconstitutional mandates against American citizens. We would need a second DC TEA Party and then a real but peaceful march on OUR Capitol and occupation of OUR property. Of course the government could resort to the violent tactics used against the Bonus Army encamped on the Mall in 1932, but then we would know the real intent of our government.

Greg Q on October 22, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Hmmm… and do not the Interstate Highway funds actualy get spent by the States themselves? ie, the Fed gives the states the funds and tells them what to spend them on… but it IS the States who spend the money…

Thus, the STATES built them… the Feds just paid for it…

You’re wrong, Ed. The Federal Government made the receipt of certain Federal Highway Funds dependent upon the States having and enforcing certain speed limits. But the Federal Government did not, and could not, create an actual National Speed Limit.

So Leahy’s “answer” is an utter fail.

You either buy health insurance (a forced exodus of your money) or pay a tax (a forced exodus of your money).

Even if the Court accepted the tenuous rationale that nobody has a stated freedom not to be ordered to buy services from for-profit corporations…the measure is open to challenge on 4th and 8th Amendment grounds, and I think the Court would have to agree the Congress cannot declare citizens have the burden to exhaust administrative remedies and win a civil suit, to avoid a punitive fine. And there is a longer history of case law against administrative punishment of citizens than in support of open-ended commerce powers.

Guess what, elected officials? YOU DO HAVE TERM LIMITS! You’ve HAD THEM ALL ALONG! But we quit paying attention many years ago. And so you took advantage of our inattention. Well. Now we are paying attention. We’ve decided we don’t like you very much. Your TERM is about to end because we’ve reached our LIMITS. Your TERM LIMIT is our VOTE that boots you from your cushy job in the fantasy-land of spending other people’s money. You will no longer receive that precious commodity. My wish for you, dear and deaf elected officials, is that those of you who would damn US to servitude to the government would experience it as well. The closest we can get is sending your chaps back home. ADIOS, MOFO!

Now, where is that brownie?

not saying i agree with it. just a case can be made. with the insurance mandate no case can be made under the consitution.

they did the same with the age limit on beer/wine etc by threatening the states with withholding of funds if the states did not increas ethe drinking age to 21. They had no consitutional right to tell the states what the drinking age should be.

they are doing the same with state seatbelt laws.

as far as speed limits on INTERSTATE highways a case can be made that it falls under the commerce clause for the regulation of interstate trade.

Even if insurance was sold across state lines the fed gov does not have the authority to make people buy it. It only has the authority to regulate the sellers not the buyers

unseen on October 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Yep…. Interstate Commerce…. you should have to slow down to 55 MPH to cross the State Border….

Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Something’s going to give. We are just committed to that trajectory. Arizona had only failed to pass Prop 101 by .4% back in 2008 (rendering it illegal for the federal government to force any health care/insurance on the state residents) and that was before The Precedent and his insanity took over. Either monetary considerations, health care, insane regulation on industry, or something with illegals is going to force some states to break away, and once one seriously considers going (publicly) other states are going to rush in and join the movement. The collapse could be quite fast, once the first cracks form.

The leftists are forcing this on us, since they are trying to nationalize everything (forgetting that we have a federal government, not a national one) and force everyone to convert to their political religion. They can easily live with us conservatives in charge, since we give them the freedom of federalism to do whatever they want in their states, but they try to force everyone to follow the same, national line. There is no bending in that position. Just a break. And this nation will break.