disputed 1979 debate order scheme…

All about lortab. Lortab. Lortab medication….

Buy cialis. Cialis….

if you have a residual “corporatist” model then they could be “spun off” and resume their private role.

***
NAME THIS CHILD! The new United Socialist States of America is my guess.
***

rocketman on October 29, 2009 at 10:25 AM

People’s Republic of China

People’s Republic of North Korea

People’s Republic of America

Socialized medecine is the keystone for the left. From he who might have some faliarity with the subject, Vladimir Lenin-“medicine is the keystone in the arch of Socialism.”

The importance to the progressives of passing, and by whatever maens necessary will pass, I recently covered here.

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/the-progressive-span-and-the-bridge-to-healthcare-reform/

If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.

For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let’s look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the “creator.” Let’s be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of “balanced power.” Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that “States are not subject to federal direction.” But today’s federal Tories argue that the “supremecy clause” of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing “supreme” is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.” So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare “incursion.” To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The point to remember here is; where do we define the “sphere” of the federal government? That’s right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let’s take one more look at Mack/Printz. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other…” What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a “structural protection of liberty” that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of “checks and balances.” The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.

So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.” (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

Tell Obama to KISS YOUR GRITTS!

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C. S. Lewis

Feminism in the Age of Obama – every “No” is really a “Yes!”

The insurers want to control this intake because they make profits with this investment principle. The Dems want that for themselves and a public “option” makes this possible. Health insurers would then eventually be relegated to healthcare administrators just as Blue Cross is now with Medicare and in fact, how health insurers operate within ERISA (self insured employers) where profits can be higherthan in their primary insurance line. That’s why health insurers have figured out they can win no matter which way health reform goes.

Officials said a similar move was under discussion in the Senate, part of a strong response to recent industry criticism of the legislation.

Can you even imagine if the Republicans had tried something like this?

That’s a nice business you’ve got there…shame if anything were to happen to it…capiche?

Pelosi told reporters a provision eliminating the health insurance industry’s exemption from federal antitrust law would be incorporated into the House measure.
Officials said a similar move was under discussion in the Senate, part of a strong response to recent industry criticism of the legislation.

Liberals calling themselves progressives? Put some more lipstick on, Mz. Pelosi.

The worked for him, ‘found’ enough ballots in MN, and expect him to deliver.

Who knew all those feminists in the long ago before Obama were really saying, Keep your laws off my body – but oh your federal regulations and mandates…yes…yes….YES! Give it to me Big Brother…oh yes!