Yo-mentum: Unions bully Boccieri into flipping
posted at 11:36 am on March 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Let’s see. John Boccieri (D-OH) opposed the initial House bill on ObamaCare, supposedly because of his principles. Now he’s flipping to a yes vote, and why?
He is one of four Democrats to switch from no to yes in the past few days as Obama and Democratic leaders try to corral enough votes for the legislation. A vote is expected on Sunday.
Boccieri has been pressured on the issue. Labor unions and other groups backing health care reform ran ads in his district.
So why did he oppose it in the first place? It looks as though Boccieri got a pass from Nancy Pelosi the first time around to protect his election prospects this fall. The 16th CD in Ohio elected him in 2008 as its first Democratic Representative since 1951. In a year when Ohio went to Barack Obama, John McCain won this district, 50/48.
Unfortunately, that puts the Democrats just a vote away from passing the reconciliation bill, according to Fox News. Those numbers are not set in stone; more changes will inevitable occur today and tomorrow, and they may go the other direction. This looks like Pelosi has decided to force those she tried to protect the first time around into exposing themselves to voter wrath, which means that all the cards are now hitting the table. If she can’t pull off the vote on Sunday, this last-minute desperation will cost Democrats dearly for nothing at all.
Will OH-16 voters let Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party’s special interests control this seat in November? I’m betting no. (via TRS)









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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
There’s no reasoning with her, and you were wrong to ever defend her. She is a true believer, not a Christmas and Easter marxist but a Monday to Sunday one. AnninCA wants to remake America with Obama, and she agrees that this gets the snowball rolling. She has always been the enemy.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Then what does it have to do with the Commerce Clause if it’s more like a tax?
darwin on March 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Yep an over reaching Progressive Leadership just can’t control their natural inclinations (Greed- Power Grasping has left them Giddy)…what happens if this fails – this isn’t going to end well, no matter which way the votes fall.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM
you have to answer your own questions. get the point, no one cares what you have to say….
jbh45 on March 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM
It is not a tax. Taxes are not imposed on negative commerce (not doing things). They are imposed by doing things (buying a coke, buying stocks, having a job). If you don’t have a job or buy a coke, you aren’t taxed for it.
If you don’t have insurance, you are (in your words) taxed for it. You are forced to do it.
You can’t tax doing nothing.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM
So obviously, this is a new tax. I thought you told us that taxes wouldn’t go up.
PappaMac on March 19, 2010 at 12:34 PM
+100000
CatsGodot on March 19, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Push state legislators to ban mandatory coverage and/or fines and put efforts in making people know that if they want it to get off their lazy ass and work for it.
bluegrass on March 19, 2010 at 12:35 PM
You can pretty much get taxed for existing, yeah. Hence the reason taxation is one of the two certainties in life.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 12:35 PM
I plunged my toilet crr6 floated up.
inchdeep on March 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Of all the dumbshit things you’ve ever posted, this is the most dumbshit.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM
BUT it’s not a Tax and they are going to hire more IRS agents to enforce the fines..
Insurance is a PRODUCT it’s not a right. This is not Constitutional OUR GOVERNMENT going by the Constitution cannot force FREE PEOPLE To Buy a PRODUCT from a “Private Industry”
THE INDVIDUAL MANDATE is not a Tax. Nobody is withholding it like medicare and social security from people’s paychecks.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Just keep in mind the democrats have set the bar low for passing legislation. All we need is 51 Senators and a majority in the House which will just “deem” Senate bills passed.
Shortly after 2012 we can begin dismantling the communist democrat entitlement/environmental empire.
darwin on March 19, 2010 at 12:38 PM
All The Individual Mandate is going to accomplish is make lawbreakers out of the working poor – and fine them for something they can’t afford because they are busy housing, feeding and clothing themselves…so much for the compassionate Democrat Health Insurance Reform…who makes money in this case? Private Insurance Industry by our Government making Health Insurance mandated LAW.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Never heard of the phrase “nothing in life is certain but death and taxes”?
The only dumbs–t is you for being neck-deep in De Nile.
Now as for WHAT taxes and HOW MUCH they are…that’s up for debate. Paying some kind of taxes is the price of civilized society.
Dark-Star on March 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM
This is good to know. Boccieri in Ohio owes his seat to the unions. Same as Betsy Markey of Colorado. They represent traditionally red districts and were given cover the first time around. Now there’s no denying Pelosi when she tells them to jump. They were bought from the get-go.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:40 PM
lol. I smack you down on legal issues regularly, including in this very thread. Yet you soldier on, unfazed. Are you willing to admit the “hole” in the Commerce clause argument you referred to earlier is complete b.s.? You know it is, of course. But you just move onto the next pseudo-legal b.s. you’ve inferred from your readings on HA, with no apparent awareness of your unbelievable igorance.
The idea that you could assert some sort of intellectual superiority is absolutely min-boggling. You’re like a freakin whack-a-mole. After a few smack-downs I get tired for the day.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM
I guess if you are poor and on Medicaid, you don’t really care if the people who stay off the public dole get penalized for not being able to afford life insurance coverage…that’s the Democrat’s Big Brag this will help the Poor…NOT The Working Poor.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM
“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” Marbury v. Madison, 17 U.S. 327,431 (1819).
Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Good Post. All you left out was the line about the Germans attacking Pearl Harbour. :)
Dire Straits on March 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Strawman. No one has a problem with taxes, only with taxes going up while our freedom is taken away, and all for something nobody wants. No taxation without representation is a bedrock principle of our Republic.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Idiotic sayings are the not the basis of any sort of legislation. And the point of this saying is that it is a lament, not a celebration.
You are not taxed for ‘existing’ in any sense of the word. Grow up.
The point is, to be taxed, you engage in some sort of activity. Buying a coke. Getting a job. You aren’t taxed for standing on the street corner. You aren’t taxed for picking your nose. Etc.
And, if the individual mandate is a tax, is not commerce. Therefore, it’s not even regulated by the commerce clause. Which is the whole basis of their argument.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Yes, Yes, and YES!!!! Very well said!!!!
capejasmine on March 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 12:45 PM
If they are only one vote away, why did Obama asl Cao to vote “yes” again?
Rush said this…
ladyingray on March 19, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Christ. And if it is a tax, then it falls well within Congress’s powers to levy taxes. It’s simply an alternative argument for the legislation. Am I only allowed to make one?
Just stop. Seriously.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
He wants to utter “bipartisan passage”
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
The idea that you agree with the twisted perversions of the Commerce Clause is what strikes people here. Do you really think they wrote the clause so the government could use it at will for virtually anything it wanted?
The fact that you don’t seem fazed by a government that is willing to do anything to advance it’s agenda is expected, but still shocking to an extent. But, as you are a law student, manipulation of the law will be your game … not fairness or justice.
darwin on March 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Fox says they are only one vote short of passing this. Rush says not so fast. I think I believe Rush.
sandee on March 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Just because some American hating communist law professor told you it’s so…doesn’t make it so.
I still have a hard time believing you act alone. I’m pretty darn sure you have others around you, guiding you along. The content of your posts speak volumes about who, and what you are, or lack of who, and what you are.
capejasmine on March 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
The idea that you could assert some sort of intellectual superiority is absolutely min-boggling. You’re like a freakin whack-a-mole. After a few smack-downs I get tired for the day.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Not really seeing any intellectual heft, here, crr6, just bad grammar, worse typos and weak braggadocio.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:47 PM
As with your fearless leader–your true colors are shining through–I hope those that defended you will see you for who you reallly are…I did long ago…
lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Monica…Is that you?
I keeeed, I keeeeed!
Laura in Maryland on March 19, 2010 at 12:47 PM
The Individual Mandate is NOT A TAX you are going to be required to BUY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. IF you don’t buy the Government Approved PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE”PRODUCT” you will be FINED. The IRS will be looking to take it out of your RETURN maybe Garnish your wages. There is no with holding for this mandate…it’s not Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security…IT’S NOT A TAX BUT IT WILL BE COLLECTED BY THE TAX COLLECTORS IN THE FORM OF FINES. The Individual Mandate is NOT Constitutional.
The Government of the U.S.A. Cannot make Citizens BUY anything – any product from a Private Industry No Matter how badly the Insurance Industry wishes it could – they are the beneficiaries of the Individual Mandate.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Obama is single-handedly doing what the Soviet Union could never do.
faraway on March 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Yeah!!!! crr6 has never had to work a hard day in it’s life. So it tires out easily. Especially on issues that require any mental strength. So leave it be, so it can collect it’s entitlements, and rest! God knows it’s suffered so.
capejasmine on March 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM
According to twitter, the negotiations between Stupak and Pelosi are over.
Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM
If you’re in the individual market its mandates will cause your costs to rise. Even CBO says that. And if we didn’t have hundreds of billions in subsidies larded into this thing, even for people at 400% of FPL, hiding its failure to control costs, you’d have a lot of people noticing it.
I love how you fetishize government power, crr6, by the way. You’re quite the fit little subject.
DrSteve on March 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM
That’s cause it’s hard to see down in the corner of the basement…and skipping school has apparently has some effect…
lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Well you took care of AnninCA. Can you do anything about crr6?
Dire Straits on March 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM
They are insisting it is not a tax. Taxes are not levied on activity not performed. The only way they can force you to have insurance is thru the perverted reading of the commerce clause.
I understand you can’t accept this. I understand. It’s okay.
I also understand that it doesn’t matter to you. You freely accept the tyranny of DC. It’s okay. Really. That’s what you are.
It’s a philosophical thing. You want to be controlled by your betters. I do not. It’s okay if that’s what you want.
I’d rather be jailed than buy that loaf of bread. And, furthermore, I’d like to see them put me away for it. I want to see that court hearing.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Obama back at lowest all time disapproval -21%
faraway on March 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Evidently Stupak isn’t going to play ball with Nancy. If they had the votes, why was Nancy trying so hard to get Stupaks vote? I think she is bluffing hoping to demoralize we peons so we will stop pestering them. Sorry Nancy, that ain’t gonna happen.
sandee on March 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Exactly. +1000. There may be a Constitutional justification for this POS bill (I doubt it, but maybe), but the Commerce Clause is not it.
Furthermore, the Commerce Clause only permits Congress the right to meddle in intrastate commerce when it has a rational effect on interstate commerce. I fail to see how my failure to engage in a private contract with a company in my own state for a service that I am barred by law from purchasing across state lines anyway has any relationship whatsoever to interstate commerce.
NoLeftTurn on March 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM
An admission that he is not representing his district. Good on you, crr6, for making that point.
unclesmrgol on March 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM
And there I go getting all sloppy with my box quotes!
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Then why is Obooboo still campaigning…hmmmm?
Laura in Maryland on March 19, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Dire Straits on March 19, 2010 at 12:53 PM
crr6 says, “Just be glad congress hasn’t decided to force you to buy an apple ipod. Yet.”
That’s the argument. In a nutshell.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Dude. This kind of cr** really is on the level of stuff I hear homeless men yell at passing cars.
I guess that’s my cue to cease the whack-a-mole game for today.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 12:53 PM
“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 327,431 (1819).
And there is also the problem raised by the Duqesne Light case on regulating companies to the point that they cannot make a reasonable rate of return. Duquesne‘s uanimous court said could be a taking in violation of due process.
Not to mention the federal pre-emption problem if Arizona amends its constitution. While a federal law generally pre-empts a state law (Wyeth v. Levine being a recent change in direction on that), a state constitution is another matter. States can grant rights in addition to those in the Constitution.
One might consider Obamacare the Lawyers’ Full Employment Act.
Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Bullied to vote yes by Union and voted out of office in Novemember………..
So how is that Union working for you?
BigMike252 on March 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM
The federal government is not allowed to just lay taxes for anything it wants, you blithering idiot. It can only tax in order to fund LEGITIMATE expenditures as detailed in the Constitution. Your idea that Congress can just decide to tax people for whatever you want (becuae your moronic Commerce clause argument is a clear loser) is silly and nonsensical.
neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 12:55 PM
It’s quid pro quo. All these freshman Blue Dogs knew what they were signing on for. They were put into power by unions, just like Obama is helping his union backers get complete control of hospitals, same as the car companies. They are all in this together, but not every Democrat signed on for this. Some have been in office for a while and like their jobs. They will listen to their constituents, if they know what’s good for them.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Shorter crr6:
“As long as the government doesn’t tell me what I can read and who I can f***, I don’t care what it tells me or anyone else to do.”
DrSteve on March 19, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Yesterday Obama was trying to get Joe Cao’s vote (he was the one GOP vote in the House). Cao later said no, that he would not vote for Senate language.
Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Yes, please do…
lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM
I know Rush is trying his best to keep everyone’s spirits up BUT…
I have noticed some “Freudian slips” and the way he has framed some comments that I believe that he believes that ObamaCare IS GOING TO PASS.
Pelosi is peeling votes away now and she doesn’t need Stupak and his Gang anymore.
LordMaximus on March 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM
I still have yet to see you whack anything but your tiny pee pee.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:57 PM
They don’t have the votes. This shows Obama is in trouble, if Cao is telling him to take a hike.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM
And they can’ seriously believe this will survive Constitutional Challenges Druge had up two articles up yesterday 37 States Idaho leading the way to strike down the Individual Mandate provision. Another article – A Challenge from Virginia.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM
No. He just wants to say “bipartisan passage of this bill”
He knows, as well as anyone else, that pure D votes in the Senate and the House make this look totally illegitimate in the eyes of a huge section of this country.
No one wants this thing to pass on purely party lines.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM
This is a pretty good example…
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Pelosi is going to hold the vote Sunday, whether she has the votes or not. She will force the issue. The Slaughter House Rule is a possibility. Just because Rush sounds uncertain, it doesn’t change the fact that the Dems have an uphill battle.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Ann, can’t you formulate a single comment without clichés like ‘real people’?
DarkCurrent on March 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM
ROFL!
Laura in Maryland on March 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM
How can you put “union” and “working” in the same sentence?
Laura in Maryland on March 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM
That, and nobody wants to be the 216th vote. Obama would love Cao to take the hit like last time, but that was before Scott Brown was elected in MA. Any appointment Obama could make is null and void in 2013, and you heard Tom Coburn. SUICIDE.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM
This explains why our Congress hasn’t passed a LAW requiring U.S. Civics classes be taught in order to graduate.
This is what they are counting on a dumbed down electorate.
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Pretty sure Stupak is a no now. How many others will he bring with him? Just because the Democrats say they have the votes doesn’t mean they do. Keep up the phone calls and the faxes. Don’t give up.
sandee on March 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Legal services are entirely too expensive in this country. We really ought to make it so no one performing work requiring a law license is able to be compensated more than $75 per hour in total costs. That will really expand the affordability of legal services to all Americans.
We should also regulate what qualifies as legal services, and include a required set of motions an attorney has to file on behalf of their client.
We ought to tightly regulate law firms to ensure they’re not making obscene profits, and if they don’t spend a certain percentage of their revenues on client service they should have to rebate it to everyone they’ve represented that year on a pro rata basis. And we should impose an excise tax on the attorneys’ portion of award contingency fees that exceed a “Cadillac” level.
And just think, we can do it all on a party-line basis and be assured it’s good legislation!
I can’t wait until Congress changes hands.
DrSteve on March 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM
There’s a reason AnninCA is a liberal. It’s because she’s dumb as a box of hair.
chunderroad on March 19, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Bullied to vote yes by Union and voted out of office in Novemember………..
So how is that Union working for you?
BigMike252 on March 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Reminds me of the scene in Goddfellas where the guy has to get his restaurant blown up for the mob….
lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Legal services are entirely too expensive in this country. We really ought to make it so no one performing work requiring a law license is able to be compensated more than $75 per hour in total costs. That will really expand the affordability of legal services to all Americans.
We should also regulate what qualifies as legal services, and include a required set of motions an attorney has to file on behalf of their client.
We ought to tightly regulate law firms to ensure they’re not making obscene profits, and if they don’t spend a certain percentage of their revenues on client service they should have to rebate it to everyone they’ve represented that year on a pro rata basis. And we should impose an excise tax on the attorneys’ portion of award contingency fees that exceed a “Cadillac” level.
And just think, we can do it all on a party-line basis and be assured it’s good legislation!
I can’t wait until Congress changes hands.
___________________________________________________________
AGREED but $75.00/hr is a bit high don’t you think? After all these jerks bill an hour for a 2 minute phone call! I believe legal services should be no more than the price of a haircut!
JohnD9207 on March 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM
The statists, including leftists, Dem politicians, Dem voters, libs and their media propagandists, are truly the enemy.
Hmmm.
What to do? What to do?
Obviously try to vote the bastards out and oppose their policies in every way possible.
And since that doesn’t seem to work very well, and since I am feeling angry and vindictive, I shall try within my limited means and abilities to make their lives a little more miserable.
If I were a plumber, I would make their next home repair a temporary fix.
If I were a restaurant worker, I would make their food not quite so tasty.
A banker? Their paper work much longer to review.
A doctor? Their wait a little longer and the compassion a little less.
A businessman? Their services delayed and a lot less right the first time.
The list is endless.
From each according to their abilities to each according to their leftism.
And, after they realize that this is happening, and even when it stops happening, they will always have a nagging thought in their minds when anything in their miserable lives is not quite right.
justltl on March 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Oh, is this what you were playing? You really need to stop hanging out at Chuckie Cheese…
lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Man, that’s a pretty slender reed upon which to base this legislation. “Considered” by whom?
Ah, the only thing that will stop you from thinking stupid thoughts is the cessation of brain activity. Hopefully, that will happen soon.
venividivici on March 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM
I guess that’s my cue to cease the whack-a-mole game for today.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Yep. You were the mole that was getting whacked.
kingsjester on March 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM
According to crr6′s logic, you can be unemployed and having no income and yet be taxed on your income.
Holger on March 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM
P.S.
I would talk about shooting the bastards or hanging them from lamp posts, but I don’t want to get banned.
I enjoy it here.
justltl on March 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM
testing
justltl on March 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Who got banned yesterday…
lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Obama and the statists want civil war in order to suspend or outright cancel the November elections. Next up will be amnesty then its on to cap and trade. Either way we are screwed, if we don’t fight they will have changed the demographics and socio-economic composition of America forever ensuring they retain power, if we do fight they will declare marshal law, suspend due process thus taking away any legitimate means to affect change by tossing their leftist butts out of office. D Day fast approaches………
Tax revolt…tax revolt…tax revolt!
dmann on March 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Remember: After 2012, all we need is 51 Senators and a House majority.
The House will deem anything the Senate passes and this thing will evaporate before it even gets started.
darwin on March 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM
James Madison flipped too. Right over in his grave. Sorry James, I didn’t vote for him.
scalleywag on March 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Congress, and the courts. What else would legislation be based off of? Your own personal determination? I don’t think you know how our sysem works.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Suppose this legislative route through Slaughter and all the bribes can be ruled unconstitutional. That would be against the law wouldn’t it? There are provable lies associated with the presentation of this legislation. Why would something like RICO not apply? And recall that a few years ago when repubs were in charge there was a new law passed that stripped federal pension benefits from law makers convicted of crimes while in office (Duke Cunningham era?).
DanMan on March 19, 2010 at 1:21 PM
That would be the most rational, just, and effective method.
But, it would have to be done en masse.
It would take a true and charismatic leader to accomplish.
I wish that Rush would adopt that cause.
Maybe someday.
justltl on March 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM
The courts haven’t weighed in. This is strictly a democrat personal determination.
darwin on March 19, 2010 at 1:26 PM
That will be a good start, but the “root cause” still needs to be addressed, i.e. parasitic Leftists trying to hijack the productive output of the masses to shower favor on their preferred special interests.
I agree with Fred Barnes’ assessment that the discord over ObamaCare will just be beginning if it passes. No civilized country can exist as a unitary polity with the levels of enmity the Left and Right have for each other. It’s not normal.
venividivici on March 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Imagine Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage, et al, calling for a tax revolt and formulating a method to accomplish it.
Oh what a happy day that would be.
They would forever cement their legacy among those of the founders.
justltl on March 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM
I suppose conflict was inevitable. Let’s just hope it’s a rather peaceful confrontation with limited but decisive battles.
I know I’m prepared.
darwin on March 19, 2010 at 1:33 PM
As it was criticized at the Founding, so it is that we find ourselves in the nightmare predicted by Anti-Federalists:
The landholder of old is the political elite of new, willing to have you shoulder any burden for them in any way possible. Your health? Tax it to death. Your window lights? Your energy shall be taxed until you cannot use any. In the name of doing ‘good’ the government can only do ill as that is the nature of taxation and commerce. That is why taxes must be light, services limited to the very few necessary to run the government and the government keep out of our lives so that we may be free to find our own way and create the good.
The path of Republics was criticized and the Constitution seen as having major problems in 1787-89, and yet we are told to forget these people who told us why the Constitution needed to be strengthened and power reigned in even more than it was. The document was not perfect then, and its path set for those willing to twist it over time. In that Hamilton did say it would take time for those who wanted to do so and he was correct.
When government can use the power of commerce to compel you to do its bidding, that is taking your positive liberty from you and using the power of government not to restrict you but to force you to do the bidding of government. When government can do that with your health, your life is in its hands for it can deteremine what you will and will not have in the way of life to the convenience of government. Your rights and liberty be damned.
That is the answer to ‘if Congress could do anything then why does it only do a few things?’ When you say Congress can compel then it can do anything at the whimsy of Congress without regard to the people in either positive or negative light. Then Congress holds all at its choosing, not yours. You are no longer a citizen, you are not even a subject although you are subjected to government. You are an object of government, a slave to government which can determine who buys what to its own choosing, not yours. That is why we restrict that negative liberty and we, the people, are to make a more perfect Union. Not government as it is but a tool, and a poor one at that compared to individual liberty and freedom.
I do not agree to give up my positive liberties and rights to Congress or any government. They are mine to build society with, I do not relinquish that to any government. Ever. Taxation on commerce is one thing. Compeling people to do good is an evil beyond all others. When our negative liberties that we entrust for restricting those who harm societies as individuals is applied to make individuals do good, then it has been perverted beyond recognition. The limited good of that negative liberty has now become an unlimited evil. And our rights as citizens become the plaything for the elite, which is tyranny.
ajacksonian on March 19, 2010 at 1:34 PM
It’s not personal, it’s a determination by Congress as a whole, through the processes outlined in the Constitution. And obviously the courts can’t weigh in before the legislation is passed. You can’t file suit to invalidate a law that hasn’t been enacted yet.
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM
What a moronic response. I wasn’t speaking of the process of determination, but to its correctness and I didn’t say anything about my personal determination. Obviously, if you have to strain to find a definition of “commerce” which “can be considered” to cover the individual mandate, it’s anything but clear that the interpretation of “commerce” that enables one to propose that mandate is accurate. I thought that your fancy law training would have let you in on that little secret about abstract words like “commerce”. Then, you have the logical inconsistencies of the definition of “commerce” you are proposing and which others have already noted, like being subject to an income tax while unemployed because hey, being unemployed is simply a failure to engage in the commercial act of selling your labor, so it can be considered “commerce”.
E.g., Muslims consider even the existence of a church in a Muslim country an “insult” to their religion and ban it. Doesn’t make it an “insult”, now does it?
venividivici on March 19, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Just got thru to Markeys office, idiots say it will lower medical costs…
I told them to get her resume primed.
reshas1 on March 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM
I went to his website and in the “contact us” section, I encouraged him to run HARD against this dude’s yes vote on this bill. I told him to get his staff over here to read this site and become familiar with the conservative issues that will garner his campaign a lot of support to help him win.
karenhasfreedom on March 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM
crr6 on March 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM
This is what baffles me: if this is such a plumb dandy bill in the first place, why would people NOT want to vote for this thing? Even to the point of wheeling and dealing with the speaker to get out of having to vote for it?
Shouldn’t the fact that they need to figure out a way to not be seen as supporting this thing bring pause to our representatives?
And here’s something crr6 might could help me with: How exactly do principals factor in to the above equation?
BlueCollarAstronaut on March 19, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »