Hatch isn’t kidding: Constitutionality of mandates a big problem

posted at 3:35 pm on November 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Patrick Leahy and Nancy Pelosi may pretend that no one questions the authority of Congress to impose a federal mandate to buy health insurance, but one of their colleagues on Capitol Hill certainly does.  CNS News interviewed Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of Leahy’s Judiciary Committee, who says that the Constitution never gave Congress that kind of power.  In fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything:

Jeffrey: One of our reporters at CNSNews.com, Matt Cover, asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: Where in the Constitution is there language that authorizes the Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance? And Congressman Hoyer said it’s in the phrase “general welfare”–which occurs at the beginning of Article I, Section 8, before the enumerated powers of Congress. What do you think of Congressman Hoyer’s constitutional argument?

Hatch: Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8. And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, “activities,” unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance, mandating that you have to buy health insurance, is not an activity. I mean, that’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

Jeffrey: And you’re not doing. If you’re sitting at home in your living room in the state of not owning health insurance, you’re not engaged in any kind of commercial activity. You’re not trading with a foreign nation–

Hatch: There’s no way. That’s right.

Jeffrey: –You’re not trading with an Indian tribe. You’re not trading across state lines.

Hatch: Well, let’s put it this way: If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing. Now, whether or not the states can is another issue. The states may be able to. But since that government is closer to the people, those state representatives know that their very political lives depend on not doing things like that to the people.

That may be true in most states, but not in Massachusetts.  The Bay State has conducted a years-long experiment in ObamaCare, with depressingly bad results.  Paul Hsieh analyzes the impact of the mandate for Pajamas Media, both pragmatically and philosophically as an individual rights argument, and concludes that it’s a loser either way:

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily specify what constitutes an “acceptable” insurance plan. Hence, this creates a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to have their pet benefits included in the required package.

Massachusetts residents are thus required to purchase benefits they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment — raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political “pull.” In aggregate, such mandated benefits have increased the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by up to 50%.

Since 2006, providers have successfully lobbied to include 16 new benefits in the mandatory package (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment), and the state legislature is considering 70 more. In the past three years, insurance premiums in Massachusetts have increased by 8-10% each year, nearly twice the national average.

Mandatory insurance thus violates the individual’s right to spend his own money according to his judgment for his benefit. Instead, he [must] choose from a limited set of insurance plans on terms set by lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than based on a rational assessment of his needs.

In the ObamaCare proposals, the enforcer for these lobbyists and bureaucrats will be that bastion of medical insight … the IRS.

Massachusetts is hardly alone in this effect, either.  Maine had both a public option and a raft of mandates on both individuals and insurers.  The result?  Rates tripled, and the public option — DirigoChoice — quickly went under.  In fact, there is now a two-year waiting list for enrollees.

For those who missed my more extensive posts on the constitutionality of the federal mandate, see here and here.  Even the CBO declared the idea “unprecedented” in 1993.  Leahy and Pelosi will pretend that the flaw in their plans doesn’t exist, but only because they have no actual argument for allowing Congress to have the very kind of dictatorial power that the Constitution was explicitly written to prevent.  It’s not just bad for liberty, it’s bad all the way around, as the experiences in Massachusetts and Maine demonstrate clearly.


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

I don’t have health insurance. Haven’t had health insurance for a better part of 5 years.

I don’t want their plan.

And they can’t force me to buy their plan.

Enoxo on November 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM

You need to stop asking questions like this. You must be a “Mandater”.

faraway on November 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Enoxo on November 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM

You don’t have to buy their plan. But if you don’t you will have to pay a penalty that’s greater than buying their plan.

Comrade.

Skywise on November 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I wonder what the SCOTUS would say about this?

d1carter on November 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Government forcing people to do stuff. That’s freedom, right there. – Bleeds Blue

lorien1973 on November 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Massachusetts is hardly alone in this effect, either. Maine had both a public option and a raft of mandates on both individuals and insurers.

why am I not shocked that the folks in congress from these states didn’t bring this to congress’ attention…

hmmmmmm….

cmsinaz on November 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM

In the ObamaCare proposals, the enforcer for these lobbyists and bureaucrats will be that bastion of medical insight … the IRS.

*shudder*

cmsinaz on November 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Leahy and Pelosi will pretend that the flaw in their plans doesn’t exist, but only because they have no actual argument for allowing Congress to have the very kind of dictatorial power that the Constitution was explicitly written to prevent.

You forgot “because they are morally and intellectually bankrupt fools”.

Our government is “led” by complete morons, let’s face it.

NoDonkey on November 2, 2009 at 3:42 PM

PELOSI = DICTATOR.

entonces

OBAMA = DICTATOR.

SUCK YOUR OWN OBAMACARE, Democrats.

TheAlamos on November 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM

I’m sure California would be on board to order it’s citizens to go broke.

Blake on November 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM

*looks around*

Where’s my samurai sword?!

Orange Doorhinge on November 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM

These Marxists aren’t going to be happy until the nation is in flames.

elduende on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Democrats abide in the Constitution? The democrats have not followed that for years due to that “living and breathing document” thing. If the founding fathers truly wanted a “living and breathing document”, they never would have given us the admendment process in THE longest existing and most freedom loving constitution in the history of the world!!

dthorny on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

In fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything

They consider that a feature, not a bug.

Crawford on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

They are going to have to put me in jail, since I will steadfastly refuse to pay the penalty. I have insurance (private HSA) for now, but it’ll of course fail after the mandates. I won’t go shopping for insurance once that happens.

Andy in Colorado on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Funny, back in the 60′s liberals protested against government because they didn’t want to do what they were told.

Who knew, that really they were protesting that government didn’t give them enough orders.

Odd.

lorien1973 on November 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Most of us are not surprised that this Marxist regime and their congressional enablers are operating in a despotic manner.

rplat on November 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM

NoDonkey

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken

JAM on November 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM

“You don’t know what you need….we do”
–Love, Important People in Congress

search4truth on November 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM

As stupid as this sounds, younger folks are not going to appreciate The Won for this.

Cindy Munford on November 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM

A couple more wise latinas on the El Supremo Corte and what will the Constitution matter anyway?

NoDonkey on November 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Even long before we get to mandates, the federal government is not supposed to be messing around in health care or health insurance, at all. The federal government has never had the power to just open up a company in order to “provide competition” to the private sector – which has to be the dumbest idea that anyone has ever uttered publicly about the role of the federal government and the operation of the market.

Individual mandates from the federal government obviously run contrary to our nation’s founding constraints and to any American traditions, but it is very wrong to cede the other parts of this health care monstrosity that are just as un-Consitutional as anything that anyone has ever proposed for our federal government.

I hope that the GOP starts pushing back on more than just the insane idea of individual mandates from the federal government, since the Constitution is being raped by all sorts of power grabs and encroachments by the federal government. Further, the federal judiciary (and many state judiciaries, too) has gone far beyond its own power in dictating to states what they must do for people, the most glaring of which are the requirements to provide services to illegal aliens who should receive nothing but a deportation immediately out of the country. Of course, when we have interpretations that declare our Constitution to apply in every sense not merely to “us and our posterity” but to anyone who happens to have set foot on our soil (against our laws and wishes), then this is how things will devolve.

Individual rights and individual liberties cannot exist without individual responsibility and the right to fail and suffer the consequences of ones decisions and the unfairness of life. The family and church long existed as the proper entities that would look after those who failed, but as the government has attacked those institutions it has turned around and claimed all the power over individuals that they had – the raping and pillaging of the nuclear family and faith-based community, essentially. This must be stopped before the government ends up with all the power there is, dictating everything that can be dictated, which is the antithesis of the American creed.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Massachusetts residents are thus required to purchase benefits they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment — raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political “pull.”

So, a male gay couple or unattached male has to pay premiums for in vitro fertilization benefits? Or, a childless couple pays premiums covering autism treatment? An orthopedic physician pays premiums covering chiropractic care?

a capella on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM

In fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything:

Which after all, is there goal.

MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM

You don’t have to buy their plan. But if you don’t you will have to pay a penalty that’s greater than buying their plan.

Comrade.

Skywise on November 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Yeah, they’ll have a fat lot of luck getting that out of me, too.

Enoxo on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM

This sounds like the kind of federal power a “wise Latina” might support.

Cicero43 on November 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM

A government health care plan would make it free for everyone. Why are so many people against freedom and free stuff? It’s free.

Bishop on November 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM

There is no Constitutional problem according to the establishment.

Most of the federal court system gives expansive interpretations of government powers along with restrictive definitions of individual liberties. Not even the so-called “originalists” would rule against this.

The Dean on November 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM

As stupid as this sounds, younger folks are not going to appreciate The Won for this.

Cindy Munford on November 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Yeah, but he’ll be long out of ofice before they figure that out. All he needs is to get the entitlements planted and the add ons can come later.

a capella on November 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM

The Constitution is already meaningless to most on the Left. Now they use it like a club on our heads. Even dogs fight back when they can’t take it any more.

Metanis on November 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM

I think that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are confident that they can roll SCOTUS when the time comes. Not sure how. Maybe they are counting on SCOTUS being too timid to oppose the black messiah.

SKYFOX on November 2, 2009 at 4:03 PM

“The Constitution is fundamentally flawed”

…Barack Obama

Knucklehead on November 2, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I think everyone in the US needs to buy my storm windows. Storm windows are a basic right. Would you want to deprive itty bitty children the right of basic protection during a Storm? You inhumane Bast^&%*!!!!

My lobbist is going to add my approved storm windows to the Health Care bill so that everyone will be madated to buy my storm windows, even if they rent.

barnone on November 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Blanche Lincoln needs to pay attention to her constituents…they are evidently furious at her. Will she vote “YAY” in the face of these poll numbers?!?!?

If the 2010 election was held today, and you had to make a choice, would you vote to re-elect Blanche Lincoln as your United States Senator no matter who ran against her?
25% Yes, 61% No

SouthernGent on November 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Cindy “younger folks are not going to appreciate The Won for this”

The strategy for those opposing this monstrous bill should be to constantly discuss that very issue. The elderly will pay with their lives for their decision to back ‘Bambi and the young that pushed him over the top are nothing more than endentured servants. The young have no future.

24K lady on November 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM

There is no Constitutional problem according to the establishment.

Most of the federal court system gives expansive interpretations of government powers along with restrictive definitions of individual liberties. Not even the so-called “originalists” would rule against this.

The Dean on November 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Hoyer came right out and said there was no limits on the general welfare power, except possibly favoritism.

Chris_Balsz on November 2, 2009 at 4:08 PM

See . . . Obama was right. The Constitution is imperfect./s

DrStock on November 2, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Knucklehead on November 2, 2009 at 4:04 PM

You beat me to it.

DrStock on November 2, 2009 at 4:11 PM

In fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything

They consider that a feature, not a bug.

Crawford on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

+1

MarkBoabaca on November 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Supposedly this all hinges on the “general welfare” clause. Note that the complete clause is “Promote the general welfare”, not “Provide” or “Guarantee” the general welfare.

This is kind of like “pursuit of happiness”. You are free to pursue your happiness, but the government is not going to provide or guarantee your happiness.

ZenDraken on November 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Good interview.

I hope the dems who back the Pelosi-care trainwreck are forced to substantively address this issue very soon. (Something more than “Are you serious? Are you serious?”)

LASue on November 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Now, whether or not the states can [mandate] is another issue. The states may be able to. –Sen.Hatch

Tennessee health care already proved that state/federal mandated health care proves a financial failure within a matter of a few years. Given that historical precedent, Hatch’s good friend, Mitt Romney yet mandated Massachusetts state health care, and was still defending it after Obama’s election when Congress began writing ObamaCare. Even the likes of McCain was opposed to government mandates during the POTUS campaign, showing just how far into socialism Romney works. Pamela Geller nailed Romney in her post, “Bye-Bye, RINO” in today’s American Thinker.

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I just got a new job with a very large insurance company (not a health insurer) that self-insurers all of its 20,000+ employees. Being an insurance company, I think it knows what it is doing here. But if its self-insurance plan does not meet the new standards set under ObamaCare, (and from what I have read few corporate self-insurance plans will meet them, and that is a feature, not a bug) it will have to expand its coverage. It can pay for this either by reducing my salary to cover the increase in benefits or by increasing its premiums which will cause it to lose business. If it loses enough business I might lose my job. Or, it might say the hell with it and dump all of its 20,000+ employees into the public program.

And there is no guarantee that the company would increase salaries, which the lunatic liberals keep saying will happen once employers are “freed” from paying high health care costs for their employees. More likely is that the company will pass that cost reduction on to its policyholders and prospective policyholders in the form of lower premiums, so it can grow its market share. So its employees will unequivocally end up worse off, having to fend for themselves in the private insurance market or buy the public plan, at a vastly higher cost.

In this job market, none of its employees could afford to quit over this.

Please tell me again how this is going to help me???

rockmom on November 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Unconstitutional you say? And just who in the hell is going to stop them? Congress can do whatever it wants, and they all know it.

Rational Thought on November 2, 2009 at 4:18 PM

“In fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything.”

They consider that a feature, not a bug.
Crawford on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Exact INTENTION.

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 4:19 PM

This is kind of like “pursuit of happiness”. You are free to pursue your happiness, but the government is not going to provide or guarantee your happiness.

ZenDraken on November 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Give them a chance and they will get to it. Anything but a smiley face and medical marijuana for you.

fourdeucer on November 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM

24K lady on November 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM

My youngest is 25 and although I must admit he is a conservative leaning libertarian he doesn’t like being told he must get health insurance or anything for that matter. I don’t think they are very good at thinking of their long term future and national debt but even if the mandate is a few years down the pike, he is already unhappy.

Cindy Munford on November 2, 2009 at 4:21 PM

So, a male gay couple or unattached male has to pay premiums for in vitro fertilization benefits? Or, a childless couple pays premiums covering autism treatment? An orthopedic physician pays premiums covering chiropractic care?

a capella on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Yep. How about childbirth benefits in general? Why should a man have to buy health insurance that covers childbirth? Why should a menopausal woman? The average hospital bill for a vaginal delivery now is around $10,000 and a caesarean can double that, and a premature birth can quadruple it.

rockmom on November 2, 2009 at 4:24 PM

An 1995 (?) after the fact review of HillaryCare concluded that it would have failed the same Constitutional challenges. Present BS is no better.
Problem is the three – four years usually needed for SCOTUS review. Lotta time to make “mistakes”.

Caststeel on November 2, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Romey-care sounds no better than Obama-care. And Boehner is signaling the GOP wants to remake health care too?

chickasaw42 on November 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM

A real Boston Tea Party is what we need.I say if obamacare is passed, we hold back all Taxes on April 15th 2010. Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

Scorp3j on November 2, 2009 at 4:32 PM

As stupid as this sounds, younger folks are not going to appreciate The Won for this.

Cindy Munford on November 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Why do you think none of the plans kick in until 2013?

Kafir on November 2, 2009 at 4:36 PM

A real Boston Tea Party is what we need.I say if obamacare is passed, we hold back all Taxes on April 15th 2010. Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

Scorp3j on November 2, 2009 at 4:32 PM

How would we do this?

My federal taxes are taken straight out of my paycheck, I never see the money.

NoDonkey on November 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM

If/when this goes through testing this in the courts should be the first move of any taxpayer group supporting the Constitution. If O has a skewed Supreme Court by then, then we must come back again and again with a different approach until we have our country back. We also need to take back a voice on the hill, VERY important. This is too important not to be fought to the last gasp.

jeanie on November 2, 2009 at 4:45 PM

jeanie on November 2, 2009 at 4:45 PM

After the Court okayed the amazingly un-Constitutional and clearly moronic Chrysler bankruptcy, including a full-on rape of the bond-holders and destruction of the sanctity of contracts … I have little faith in the Court standing up for the Constitution or America.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM

n fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything:

“WOULD create”? Haven’t we had a despotic Congress since the ’30′s?

Fed45 on November 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM

After the Court okayed the amazingly un-Constitutional and clearly moronic Chrysler bankruptcy, including a full-on rape of the bond-holders and destruction of the sanctity of contracts … I have little faith in the Court standing up for the Constitution or America.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM

And then there’s Kelo. If it’s good for big government — and limits individual freedom — it’s good for SCOTUS, too, I think. They do, after all, work for the government.

Rational Thought on November 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM

In fact, Hatch says that the interpretation of Leahy and Pelosi would create a despotic Congress that could force Americans to do anything

They consider that a feature, not a bug.

Crawford on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Which after all, is there goal.

MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM

It’s a core goal, even.

steveegg on November 2, 2009 at 4:54 PM

This is kind of like “pursuit of happiness”. You are free to pursue your happiness, but the government is not going to provide or guarantee your happiness.

ZenDraken on November 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Once they define what that happiness is they will guarantee it.

thomasaur on November 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM

A real Boston Tea Party is what we need.I say if obamacare is passed, we hold back all Taxes on April 15th 2010. Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

Scorp3j on November 2, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Ummmmm…that would work if all of us were required to write a check to the IRS for what we owned. How do I hold back money they’ve already taken out? Great idea….back when people actually had to write the IRS a check. A lot of people were saying “make me!”. The IRS quickly got wise to that. Which is why we now have payroll “witholding”

Fed45 on November 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I’ve said this before; If the government can force you to buy something, then it can do anything it wants.

True_King on November 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I have little faith in the Court standing up for the Constitution or America.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM

That all is compounded by the nation’s Attorney General with his conflict of interest that should have prevented him from taking (or keeping) his position (his employment law firm defended the 9/11 terrorists). Who has “standing” to censure or at least criticize Obama’s A.G., particularly given his corrupt order to dismiss the established case vs. Philly New Black Panthers armed with billy clubs at the voting center?

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Unconstitutional you say? And just who in the hell is going to stop them? Congress can do whatever it wants, and they all know it.

Rational Thought on November 2, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Good point. People can say “unconstitutional” all they want. SCOTUS won’t (or can’t?) step in until until someone brings a case before the U.S. showing harm. And it will have to occur AFTER the fact.

Fed45 on November 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM

And then there’s Kelo. If it’s good for big government — and limits individual freedom — it’s good for SCOTUS, too, I think. They do, after all, work for the government.

Rational Thought on November 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Yeah, I was going to throw Kelo in (as that was such an amazing broadside against the most important notion of private property rights) but figured I’d just go with the latest assault on America by the SCOTUS. It gets tiring having to list all the insane SCOTUS decisions, profligate as they are.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Yep. But Holder should have tossed/removed from Justice long ago – all Senators who okayed his appointment are just as culpable. Our institutions are all at war with us. It’s just crazy.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Give an inch, bureaucracy will take it all.

If the government can force you to buy something, then it can do anything it wants.

Obama was working on requiring everyone to take a particular (neglectfully manufactured/tested) vaccine, only prevented from succeeding completely this time due to incompetence. So down the line, Pookie issues an executive order that everyone must take X drug, or suffer Z punitive damages (loss of employment, loss of banking privileges, loss of property, insurmountable fines, prison).

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 5:06 PM

A question. How is the mandate (and the fine for non-compliance) enforced? If the fine is not paid, then what? Do they levy against your assets? Do they take your house and savings?

I’m merely preparing for a mass revolt. The natural expansion of the Tea Party Party. What if several million Americans don’t buy the insurance and don’t pay the fine?

What happens?

I know I’m going to get a lot of very humorous responses but if anyone actually knows what happens under any of the bills floating around out there, that would also be appreciated. Of course, bring on the funny one’s too. It doesn’t — yet — hurt to laugh.

IndieDogg on November 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM

all Senators who okayed his appointment are just as culpable. Our institutions are all at war with us. It’s just crazy.

progressoverpeace on November 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM

no kidding.

The silent majority is still waiting for air to breath, Obama having officially ignored all opposition as either nonexistent, or inconvenient moving most people from frantic to panic as each established norm of communication with our elected officials is systematically disconnected. Our roar falls on deaf ears.

God help America defang Pelosi and Reid, and remove the majority status Obama stands upon.

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 5:18 PM

In Recognition of Constitution Day, the Long-Lost Charter Is Printed on Milk Cartons Nationwide http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-recognition-of-constitution-day-long.html

Mervis Winter on November 2, 2009 at 5:23 PM

At the risk of defending RomneyCare, lay midwives are probably a cost saver compared to OBGYNs.

holdfast on November 2, 2009 at 5:33 PM

What is this “Constitution” that you speak of…?

Seven Percent Solution on November 2, 2009 at 5:37 PM

IndieDogg on November 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I would assume the IRS would simply garnish the fine out of your paycheck (if you earn a paycheck, that is). Of course, if you don’t earn a paycheck, then the IRS will probably send you some free Obama money to pay for your Govsurance.

j_galt on November 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM

I will NOT buy insurance, specifically to force a legal battle over the Constitutionality of trying to force me to buy insurance. I’m sure many, many others will do the same.
It will be expensive, yes. But the America my Grandparents, uncles, parents and myself believe in, is worth it.

KMC1 on November 2, 2009 at 5:44 PM

It doesn’t — yet — hurt to laugh.
IndieDogg on November 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM

VOTE CONSERVATIVE for strength and prosperity. Nip the marxists in the butt.

What you discuss would take a massive revolt that would be met by an even more massive police/military force.

Kent State demonstration should ring a modern history bell, gratus another wartime Democrat potus who augmented JFK’s chosen war in Vietnam.

That was when Liberals were yet rational classical thinkers within the Democrat Party, itself a “big tent” housing blue dog farmers, factory workers and radical SDS youth–the very youth who pirated “liberal” to describe their radical asses, Bill Ayers et.al. Many of their rich Liberal lenient cool parents never taught them the difference between right and wrong, that mutual respect requires personal effort extending respect to others and for private property of others, not just demanding respect for one’s self and one’s own property.

American kids today actually believe in Marxism, and don’t even know what’s in our Constitution. Those who believe in our Constitution often join our military, or attend private church universities or else keep it to themselves while matriculating through college.

This time, it would not be the liberal children of lenient parents demanding their way in this strife for liberty to prevail. This time the media would smear every protester rather than evoke sympathy for the Constitutional Rights being wronged by the federal government. We saw that reporting during the August Congressional recess. It isn’t just the globalist governance One World Order powers permeating our government, but the MSM also that means to deny conservatives voice AND Constitutional Rights. These people are all bought and function in concert. It is in their vested interest to deprive us of our Constitution.

maverick muse on November 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM

This will not end until bad things start happening to the power-grabbers.

Aitch748 on November 2, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Can’t they just force us to pay for a new tax, then buy it for us?

Seems a distinction without a difference to say they can’t force us to buy something, but they can tax us for whatever they like.

Thune on November 2, 2009 at 6:05 PM

If that abortion of a health care “reform” bill passes, I can hardly wait for my annual IRS 1040. When it asked for the name of my insurance company and policy number, I’ll provide the following:

NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS!

Feds going to ‘access’ a fine? I don’t think so. Seems Barry and Company haven’t messed with the due process clause yet, and I’m still entitled to a trial BEFORE they take money out of my pocket. If 300,000,000 US citizens give the same answer as above, Barry will be hard pressed to enforce anything.

GarandFan on November 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

I argued it out with a liberal who declared that
Well all people must have insurance..

Ok how about this one for size..
All women must be FORCED to have their children – so no abortion..

ohh you can have so much fun with this like
I mandate that ALL americans Buy stock in my company (just like al gore).. and global warming..

or even more fun..
I mandate you all be forced to buy my magazine..
after all you MUST be forfced to listnen to my point of vierw..

you asshats.

veteranoutrage on November 2, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Does anyone think Canada would be willing to buy the M states, especially the northern ones. Most of them are too far gone for salvation.

Sporty1946 on November 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Does anyone think Canada would be willing to buy the M states, especially the northern ones. Most of them are too far gone for salvation.

Buy? Just leave them on Canada’s door step like a flaming bag of crap, ring the bell and run.

Aviator on November 2, 2009 at 7:49 PM

***
Why do you think that Comrade Obama (PBUH) is appointing WISE LATINA type judges to the Supreme Court?
***
One more appointment should do the trick. Five in favor of and four against all Messiah plans will totally remake America. The U.S. Constitution will then mean anything The One wants it to mean on any given day.
***
All it takes is an auto accident, a severe illness, or one crazed assassin taking out one conservative or neutral SCOTUS Justice. Keep praying that all 5 stay safe and healthy.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on November 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Here is the point that most people are missing..or imho no one is voicing strongly enough…the argument the libs are making about the states mandating car insurance..Car Insurance is only required if you wish to drive a motor vehicle. Car Insurance isn’t like mandated health care..mandating health care insurance is requiring you to do something just for EXISTING/BEING BORN

johng on November 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Does anyone think Canada would be willing to buy the M states, especially the northern ones. Most of them are too far gone for salvation.

Buy? Just leave them on Canada’s door step like a flaming bag of crap, ring the bell and run.

Aviator on November 2, 2009 at 7:49 PM

ROFL

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Throw in GM & Chrysler too. Let them be Canada’s problem.

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

Here, Judge Napolitano breaks it down very simply.

Robert17 on November 2, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I’m sure California would be on board to order it’s citizens to go broke.

Blake on November 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM

California is already broke and is proposing a 10% increase in the income tax across the board.

eanax on November 2, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Senators Hatch and Leahy are not on speaking terms.

Blacksmith8 on November 2, 2009 at 8:50 PM

What is this “Constitution” that you speak of…?

Seven Percent Solution on November 2, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Snicker Richter factor 2.5

Blacksmith8 on November 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Are there any Court cases in the M states dealing with their mandatory healthcare system?

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 2, 2009 at 10:22 PM

The entire point of this nation was that “We the People” would have power over our government and not the other way around.

munchnstuf on November 2, 2009 at 10:32 PM

ACTUALLY, the Constitution does not give the Congress the authority to pass ANY healthcare legislation, PERIOD.

nelsonknows on November 3, 2009 at 4:17 AM

This, to Pelosi, ObamaCare, & the IRS…. BITE ME!

hopefloats on November 3, 2009 at 5:39 AM

I agree with Hatch. I think there really is a question of constitutionality on mandates.

AnninCA on November 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM

If 300,000,000 US citizens give the same answer as above, Barry will be hard pressed to enforce anything.

GarandFan on November 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Ha! They declare 12 million cases of illegal entry over the border is too many for enforcement, gotta write the violation off the books. Is Obama’s aunt out yet?

Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM

These Marxists aren’t going to be happy until the nation is in flames.

elduende on November 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

I actually believe this too. My educational experience showed that many sociologists (ie liberals) are haters of the US and her history. Specifically, our religious heritage. They cannot comport to any moral structure, especially one that allowed slavery.

leftnomore on November 3, 2009 at 1:08 PM