| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Health Care Obamamation Under Challenge on Many Fronts |
| 2010-08-04 |
| Last November, Nancy Pelosi was asked if ObamaCare was Constitutional and she replied: "Are you serious?" Two salient points are implicit in Pelosis' statement. Those are: 1. Failed lawyers go into politics and 2. "We don need no steenking Constitution." Pete Stark was making that exact point that just the other day ... The State of Virginia passed a law which had broad bipartisan support in the State legislature. The law prohibits its citizens from being forced to purchase health care insurance at risk of being fined if they don't. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson got serious and ruled against Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' motion to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit. Judge Hudson's ruling paved the way for a trial beginning October 18th (Just in time for the November elections) which is certain to end up in the Supreme Court of the United States. Twenty-one states and several individuals are already suing to overturn ObamaCare. Missouri took another avenue similar to Virginia's except Missouri chose to use a referendum to turn aside the ObamaCare. At the heart of these arguments are individual and States' rights versus the rights of the Federal government. If individuals can be compelled to buy health care insurance then they can be compelled to buy anything at the direction of the Federal government depending upon the perceived needs of the government. If ObamaCare stands, individuals could be compelled to buy cars from GM or Chrysler, buy certain kinds of food that are deemed healthy, buy appliances or other products which are determined to impact health, buy stocks from Wall Street firms to keep them solvent, and on and on. The individual basically becomes a servant/slave of the state the purpose of that slave to be determined by central planners in Washington. At that point individual liberties defined by the Constitution cease to exist. The ends justifies the means and social justice have replaced a sacred document which has guided this country for more than two centuries; the U.S. Constitution. |
| Posted by:JohnQC |
| #1 At the heart of these arguments are individual and States' rights versus the rights of the Federal government. Under the Commerce clause (and other peculiar interpretations) the States no longer have much in the way of rights. Under the interpretations of Emminent Domain and of Civil Forfeiture, among others, the individual is getting pretty low on rights too. But Federal government rights, which are non-existent in the Constitution, continue to grow exponentially. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-08-04 09:32 |