Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions
by Josie WalesRepealing Obamacare via Article V is a means of last resort, or rather a threat to the national bureaucratic government should those in Washington not jump on board. In the meantime, states, those individual laboratories of liberty, are attempting a number of remedies.
States have filed lawsuits, but my legal background makes me wary of relying on the judicial branch to make the ultimate decisions on policy. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter in conflicts involving the Constitution, but that does not guarantee that correct decisions will result. So first we will examine the legislative solutions.
Many states across the country are either introducing laws or revising constitutions to protect Americans from the tyranny of Obamacare. The progress of these Health Care Freedom Acts or Amendments are being tracked by various groups. Most of this legislation is fairly simple to read and understand. Basically, states are refusing to enforce or enact Obamacare, which is perfectly reasonable under the present legal understanding of federalism. The national government cannot force states to enforce unfunded federal law. A perfect example of this is the increasing decriminalization of marijuana in communities across America. Local police are handing out tickets (much better for revenue than throwing people in jail).
Health Care Freedom passed in a few states, including the Commonwealth of Virginia (in addition to its lawsuit), and is working its way through the legislatures of many others. The first state to allow its citizens to vote in a referendum is Missouri. The Missouri Health Care Freedom Act (MHCFA) appears on the ballot on August 3. This vote may prove crucial in the repeal of Obamacare. If it succeeds by large margins it will signify the beginning of the end of the progressive agenda. Anyone who is serious about defeating the progressives should support Missouri in its endeavor. You can be assured that OFA, MORE (the new Missouri ACORN), and other progressive organizations will be pulling all sorts of shenanigans.
Now let us discuss some of the legal reasoning in the quest to repeal Obamacare:
1) The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
First off, there is no such thing as “states’ rights.” The Tenth addresses “powers,” and we dilute the meaning of “rights” by suggesting that states have them. While no formal definition of “reserved powers” exists for the states, some are readily identifiable. National legislative powers are limited to the enumerated powers “herein granted,” according to Article I § 1 of the Constitution. That is, if a legislative power is not mentioned within the confines of Article I, it is reserved to the states. And while the national powers of both the executive and judicial branches include implied powers, the implied powers do not exist in a vacuum, or rather those powers relate to the aforementioned legislative powers. Traditionally, “reserved powers” includes public health, safety and welfare. Many more exist, though. State common law drives contract, family, property and tort jurisprudence.
The legal argument pertains to the enumerated powers. Essentially, neither health care nor insurance can be found within Congress’ enumerated powers. Progressives love to misconstrue Article I § 8 cl 1:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Apparently, “general” means “everything under the sun,” rather than “non-specific,” and one cannot get any more specific than an unprecedented 2400 page bill that addresses 1/5 of our economy. Presumably, the states are tasked with providing for the “specific welfare.” James Madison went further in delineating the powers of the national and state governments in Federalist 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
2) The Commerce Clause:
Article I § 8 cl. 3 reads:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Progressives argue that even if the Constitution did not specifically grant the power to control health care, the Commerce Clause does, in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I § 8 cl. 18):
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Commerce clause jurisprudence cannot be discussed within the confines of this article. Suffice it to say that a government mandate to buy health insurance or suffer a penalty stretches the legislative power “to regulate commerce.” One could argue that if the government could force citizens to buy health insurance then the government could also force citizens to buy firearms. See how that sits with progressives!
3) Roe v. Wade
Let me preface this by saying that Mississippi is one of my favorite states in the Union. The people there are some of the most hospitable in the country. And now they are fighting progressive policy with progressive logic.
Most legal minds, whether they support or oppose the result of Roe, agree that the legal reasoning was flawed. Roe established the “right to privacy” in American jurisprudence out of thin air.
The Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
The problem is that the court did not go into great detail on the history of that right. Another problem is that the court also recognized that this right was not absolute. How a “fundamental right” cannot be absolute is perplexing, to say the least. A later case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reaffirmed the rule in Roe, and furthermore, addresses government power in the realm of health care:
Roe, however, may be seen not only as an exemplar of Griswold liberty but as a rule (whether or not mistaken) of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection.
Further discussion of the lawsuit in Mississippi can be found here.
4) The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Put simply, the government cannot ever be the guarantor of rights because those rights belong to the people, in opposition to government power.
The 9th Amendment would be more appropriately asserted by individuals, but this would not preclude state support. I am not aware of any state asserting this argument directly, but it may not be applicable until the national government actually tries to enforce the individual mandate. I have asserted the importance of this amendment in a discussion of “fundamental rights,” and in opposition to the progressive agenda. More importantly, this line of argument could prove persuasive to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a crucial vote on the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy likes to blaze a trail, and is acutely aware of his role in decision-making and precedence on the court.
In conclusion to this entire discussion, I leave you with these prophetic words of James Madison in Federalist 46:
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
149 Comments
The Commerce Clause argument was summed up very well when Kris Kobach talked to a Chris Stigall about the implications of this bill. I'm paraphrasing. When you're talking about the mandate, people who are not purchasing health insurance are not engaging in any commerce and that non-commerce cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause. You can't argue that the Commerce Clause covers a situation where there was no commerce to begin with.
And I'll be at the polls on Aug. 3 to cast my vote for health care freedom in Missouri.
Excellent article.
All it is going to take, is one galvanizing moment.
Compare it to Gov. George Wallace standing in the schoolyard door. Perhaps it needs be Gov. Jindal in Louisiana telling the FEDs to kiss his ass and tell them to leave Louisiana. That would be a start.
The bottom line, this is about States Rights.
ALL OF IT!
Understand this; in large numbers, We the People WILL NOT COMPLY. This alone lays the strongest case against illegal mandates. If even ten million People choose to protect their personal liberty, that part of obamacare falls. And if the individual mandate falls, the entire legislation falls.
Repeal, prosecute and remove all those that have had a hand in this UN-AMERICAN bill. Our elected officials have shown NO mercy therefore they deserve NO MERCY. Send these self-centered and ego driven liars to the ash heap of history.They deserve nothing less.
I live in Virginia, and I'm glad our State is fighting this bill. I pray all States do the same.
Make it a state crime to try and enforce the healthcare bill. Someone tries to fine you for not having gov't approved healthcare? Have them arrested, fined $5000 and thrown in jail for 30 days. Also make it so anyone can sue the agents.
Just like they have been trying to treat our CIA agents…
In reading your post, I just came up with a novel thought that is quite ironic, and humorous.
With this illegal mandate, those who do not comply, are immediately branded as "illegals". Subject to fines, imprisonment and who knows what to be conceived negative applications of the law.
On the other hand, true "illegals" can gross the Border at will, and get free medical care, and amnesty (right around the corner). They are welcomed here, as evidenced by the fact there is no apparatus or real effort to stop them.
Consequently, foreign illegals are now treated better, aand with more respect and dignity, than natural born citizens. Now isn't that just a swift kick in the balls?
Hard enough to double you over and make you lose your air…………
I can only look at California where I live. California needs to split in two with the North leaving the South (Americas version of Tijuana). The South taking San Francisco along with Davis CA. and the North taking Sacramento to South of Lodi. The North can no longer support the Marxist ways of the South. The North contributes much and the South sucks the life out of the North State.
Split the State in half and allow the North to save themselves from the Stupid Hippies of the South who ARE Anti-American, Anti-Constitution and the best Government the Country of Mexico and the Taliban have ever had.
Hopefully the health care battle will not get into a court led by a judge who legislates from the bench. That is frightening. It will continue to erode the meaning of our Constitution.
1. Absolutely correct. That is precisely what the 10th Amendment says.
2. Actually, the government has in the past imposed mandates on the people to own and maintain arms (both firearms and melee weapons) to enable militia service. It is this mandate that some are citing as "justification" for enforced insurance purchases. Of course what they overlook is that the mandate to purchase and maintain said arms failed miserably, leading to the changes in the militia laws of the country.
3. I endorse the right to privacy. And indeed, it very much does stand against any government imposed mandate to purchase health insurance.
4. The government is not the granter of rights, but it is supposed to be the guarantor of rights. If it is not, then it is failing in its purpose.
None of this is going to change until the current regime is removed from power. Nov is your one and only chance to get ALL OF THEM out. If incumbents are permitted to retain their seats we are in for one heck of a ride in the following years. It is beyond imperative that ALL politicians that voted for this bill along with other radical bills be removed. IMO time is running out for the America and there are only 2 shots left for the people of this nation. Again this coming Nov and of course the '12 election. Incumbents are beyond brazen in their actions, don't agree with me? Check the headlines and watch some vids… the BP hearing should give you a good idea they are out of control.
They know their time is coming but if they survive they WILL stick it to all of us. The amount of radical destructive laws in the works has got to be stopped. Whatever it is they are building they are too close to just give up, they are going to fight each and every one of us to get what they want.
Obamacare is already causing companies to cut coverage and some places to shut down. IMO any candidate vying for your vote must clearly state "I will sponsor/ co author a bill to repeal this law" Its that simple folks if whomever is trying to get your vote won't say this dont vote for them.
Time IS running out, come out of your shell, cross the line within yourself and TAKE BACK AMERICA through http://www.savingtherepublic.com
The infamous commerce clause. Yet another term denuded of it's actual MEANING, a meaning which may NOT change, unless by amendment, as we have a WRITTEN constitution, not one that shifts about depending on the whim and caprice of the black-robed mob or a few congressional and executive demagogues. You know you are in trouble when SCOTUS cites itself as the source and summit of the Supreme Law. SCOTUS went off the rails from the off. Marbury is bad law, and the most transparently self-serving, power-grabbing decision in U.S. constitutional history. It is no wonder we have come to this.
If Congress had anything about them they would strip SCOTUS of ALL but original jurisdiction as a matter of course.
The commerce clause does not give Congress the power to control commerce, but to make commerce regular (that is what "regulate" means, it is NOT a synonym for "control") by removing obstructions (through various forms of state tax and fee systems) to the free flow of goods, people, and services across state lines. Only a court ignorant, or intentionally hostile to the proper balance of the Union could invent the meaning as now understood, and stand behind it. SCOTUS is more concerned about it's own institutional status and it's power to manipulate than the Supreme Law writ large. If I read one more opinion grovelling like a beaten whelp at the feet of precedence I'm going to vomit.
I hope something happens before our taxes are due. Because if we don't pay the fine, they will deduct it from your tax check, or throw us all in jail…..which at this point I'll gladly go before they steal my money!
The House has already voted to REPEAL the Obamacare but got defeated 187-230 with 15 or 20 Dems on board with the GOP to repeal. I'm sure that the Dems who were on board with the GOP are only concerned about their jobs rather than the voters themselves.
The ONLY way to stop Obama and the Anti-American, Anti-Republic Dumbocrats along with Progressive RINOs is to STOP feeding the beast our Tax Dollars. We will never be able to gift them enough of our Dollars nor will our un-born children or Grand Children be able to pay their Marxist Anti-Constitutional Debts. We have allowed them to send our jobs over sea's, let the Union Mobsters take over elections, killed the promise of SSI, Let the DNC own Goldman Sachs run wild on Wallstreet, Allowed Barney and Chis to kill our Banks though Fannie and Freddie as we let them make Laws for the Rich, Famous, Politicians, Illegal Aliens and down at window 27 are the Small people who flip the Bills to pay for it. We are in the largest Civil War that no one knows about in History.
As Burney Mac would say "Wake Up America".
You are utterly wrong about Marbury.
Judicial review is inherent to the concept of an independent judiciary, and essential to the proper division of powers among the branches of government.
The principle is clearly laid out in The Federalist for anyone to read.
Thank God for our founding fathers and the Divine inspiration they were blessed with. The system they bequeathed us is proving to be far more resilient than even they could have foreseen. We stand bloodied, but not beaten…even after 100 years of abuse. And stand we do. And will continue to do for as long as one patriot still draws breath. Remember the Alamo!
Florida is part of the lawsuit and there's talk about outlawing Obamacare. Here's hoping the latter passes if the former fails.
The brilliance of James Madison never ceases to astound me. But, I wonder if he ever imagined that the "foreign yolk"
would arise from within our shores. Could he have ever dreamed of the "degree of madness" that drives our federal government.
When I refuse to comply and they come to collect the fine, they're first going to get a one-fingered salute. If they try to imprison me, they'll have to take me out of my home by force because I won't go willingly.
Two words to ponder: Thirty-eight states.
and were we to conclude that the federal government is failng in its purpose…
I for one am sick and damn tired of being robbed of near 50% of my productivity to support these thieves in DC who turn around and piss my money away on graft, illegals, unions and other assorted waste.
Think of how successful a liberty oriented, Constitutionally protected state could be on it's own without the federal yoke around it's neck.
Yes this is about States rights and the taking of said rights by the fed gov. But the entire agenda of this administration is attacking State rights AND the rights of the people. The administration is attacking ALL of us on many fronts.
Fellow Virginia freedom lover here (and Libertarian). I'm SOOOO VERY GLAD Virginia is standing up against this from the very beginning! I hope Cuccinelli keeps fighting and takes up fights against the rest of this administration's B.S.
I will fully support Virginia's secession if there's no other way.
"Consequently, foreign illegals are now treated better, and with more respect and dignity, than natural born citizens"
Welfare recipients with more dignity than the employed.
Union members with more dignity than independent contractors.
Terrorist nations with more dignity than allies.
Mexico with more dignity than Arizona.
ACORN with more dignity than Tea Party Patriots.
islam with more dignity than Christianity.
The list could go on and on, but I think the pattern is pretty well established.
When tens of millions of us stand by your side, those 15,000 new irs agents won't make any difference.
[...] this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | [...]
Thanks Kasteer! We will be pulling for your State as well.
I don't think we can repeal the bill. Bills almost never get repealed. However, if the GOP wins a majority, they can refuse to fund it!
if it's anti-gubmint I'm pro-it…..depending on nuttin' else being shinier…oooooow sparkles…..
Yeah, except they are lawyers and they aren't ever sure what words really mean…
I find it disturbing that most of the general public tends to ignore the patterns…..and are taught to ridicule those who do….It is disheartening….There is much work to be done….
They've done it before, in the Great Depression. Something about legislating the wheat a farmer was growing for personal use on his own land, under the premise that if he didn't grow it, he'd buy it elsewhere and it thus came under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause.
The problem with this interpretation, of course, is that under this logic, any method we use of procuring our means of survival, either through the purchase of goods or the production of them, can then be legislated and regulated by the federal government. It might be a good idea to support an amendment to the constitution limiting and enumerating the specific powers granted to the Feds by the commerce clause, perhaps an amendment limiting those powers to arbitration of commerce issues between the states.
Hey man LOL. I'm no hippy. And please no San Francisco. Let them move north of you and merge with Seattle.It's tough enough for the 5 of us republicans down here the way it is.
Taxes are an assualt on liberty. One of the things we HAVE to make people understand is that economic and personal liberty are inseparable. When they confiscate your money, they also confiscate your freedom, and just because they occasionally give you something back in return for that freedom/money does not negate the original crime or mean that they have done a better job of providing for your needs than you have.
Aim higher. You may not hit your target, but at least you won't hit your own countrymen.
I would support a constitutional amendment limiting the powers granted to the federal government under the "commerce clause." That is one power that has been WAAAAAAAAAAY too abused by our wonderful Feds.
The ONLY way to stop Obama and the Anti-American
See http://www.chronwatch-america.com/forum/viewtopic...
New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War by passing Resolution Immediately Voiding Several Federal Laws,
By PJ June 16, 2010 07:34
New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War by passing Resolution Immediately Voiding Several Federal Laws,
Threatens Counterstrike Against Federal "Breach Of Peace"
Well yeah, it pretty much goes without saying that the federal government, and too many state governments, are falling far short in their established and ordained delegated task.
"Roe established the “right to privacy” in American jurisprudence out of thin air."
Not exactly. Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut created the "right to privacy" out of thin air; Roe simply extended it to cover a right to infanticide.
They repeal it or else they are dragged from office and thrown into the streets. The American people are the Boss and not the reverse.
Roe will be sold for barrycare. The progressives on the SC will have a firesale, and the conservatives may try to save it.
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government Submitted on:Friday 18th of June 2010 02:38:42 PM voted by 9 users [...]
In Georgia on June 2, 2010 the Governor signed SB 411 which in Section 1 (b) included the following language:
(b) To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care:
(1) No law or rule or regulation shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system; and
(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
(c) Subject to reasonable and necessary rules and regulations that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or by rule or regulation.
(d) This Code section shall not:
(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;
(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;
(3) Prohibit care provided pursuant to any statutes enacted by the General Assembly relating to workers' compensation;
(4) Prohibit the imposition by the General Assembly of conditions and limitations on the use or applicability of exemptions and deductions with regard to income taxation;
(5) Affect laws or rules in effect as of January 1, 2009; or
(6) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services."
It basically protects the individual or employer from being forced into the federal health care system.
Bullseye.
All you need to know: the first people hired under this bill are 16,000+ new IRS agents…
It's not about health care, it's about robbing you blind.
Infanticide? LOL. You guys are too much. You should all just move to Missouri or Mississippi and leave the rest of us reasonable people the hell alone.
Royal Magistrate: The prisoner wishes to say a word.
William Wallace: [shouts loud and long] Freedom!!!!!!!!!!
Hey! No merging San Francisco with Seattle! NO!
Send the wingbats to Cuba!
Pay your taxes. It doesn't matter how oppresive they are. We have to take the high ground with these thugs. Pick your battles. We have to remove the cancer, one by one. November is the first step. With a consevative majority (note not Republican), we can then do the work of rooting out those members of the administration that are working with Obama to undermine the Constitution and it's authority. Rep. Issa has already said if we have a majority, he is going be "all up in Obama's grill", to paraphrase.
Ditto that! One of those times I'm proud to be from the Show Me State–along with Branson, the Ozarks, the St. Louis Cardinals and Missouri's general awesomeness.
What do you call the murder of innocent children? Are you such a blind moron that you can't see abortion for what it is? Reasonable my ass.
American citizens can also simply refuse to comply with the federal law. There's not nearly enough prison space for all of us.
The Commerce Clause was originally intended to make sure states didn't have trade wars with one another and didn't set up embargoes against other states. That makes complete sense.
The belief that the federal government has the right to mandate any purchase is a perverted interpretation of that clause. Can the government tell us we have to buy the Blue-Ray of "Gigli?" Can the government tell us we have to buy two cases of Cheez Wiz each year? Can the government tell us we all have to buy that fabulous new invention called the Shake Weight? Most people would say no.
But if you happen to support the government telling us we must buy healthcare, you should have no problem with the government telling you to buy anything else. This government is becoming tyrannical, and it's not even trying to be sneaky about it any more. It's right there in plain sight.
The rest of you, a whopping 20% of Americans. Move away, my ass! Your very fringe minority leftist ilk ought to move somewhere more to your liking, like Amsterdam. Or Havana.
The individual mandate is put there precisely so it can fall. That would be a 'crisis not to be wasted' so the whole system can be replaced by 'single-payer' system. If you go after 'individual mandate',
The individual mandate is put there precisely so it can fall. That would be a 'crisis not to be wasted' so the whole system can be replaced by 'single-payer' system. If you go after 'individual mandate',
you will fail.
You must go after the entire legislation. There are thousands of provisions in there which are worth fighting, but the most important is the one not in there—that it is the back door for the Left's desire to take over the entire health-care industry. Now THAT is thing we can, and should fight. With all our might. Because if this legislation stands, the Republic falls.
Don't worry. I believe Mr. San Andreas and the Fault brothers will do a fine job at splitting the State.
We need to bring banishment back!
Great article!
Yes, this Obama Crap has to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Madison, as you probably know, stood firm on the definition of the commerce clause in congress when others tried to expand the scope of 'commerce' beyond 'trade' (buying, selling and associated transportation) with other nations and between states. SCOTUS agreed, up through the early 20th century, that 'manufacturing' among other activities was NOT within the scope or the commerce clause. Regulate indeed meant 'make regular'.
The expansion of the scope of the clause in recent times ignores the explanations in Federalist Papers and in many SCOTUS precedents.
LOL sorry. Cuba is a good alternative.
The Supreme Court manufactured the "right to privacy" out of thin air. No it did not. Simply read the 9th Amendment you cite and you will see it state that although certain rights have been listed, other rights are retained by the people. Where are these rights listed? They are not. The founders left it to the Supreme Court to determine what these rights are. As far as the criticism Roe has received, it is based upon the three trimester formula, not upon the existence of a right to privacy.
Really, now infanticide. Wait until someone you love tells you they must terminate a pregnancy due to an immediate threat to their health. You will fall on your knees thanking God for Roe. Oh, so you are in favor of an exception for the health of a mother. OK. Who decides? What if you have differing points of view? Remember, time is of the essence and every day which passes increases the risk. Tick, tick, tick. How serious does the threat have to be? As far as Griswold goes, are you familiar with the facts of the case. Single woman were banned from buying the birth control pill. I know. Why don't you run for political office and try to reinstate this law. Now that will really win over the single soccer moms.
Unless all existing federal laws and agencies justified on the enlarged (and in my opinion incorrect) scope of the clause are 'grandfathered' there may be too much water under the bridge now. Industrial Safety (OSHA) is just one example.
You call the murder of a child "homicide of a juvenile".
You call the murder of an infant "infanticide".
You call the . . . abortion of . . . a fetus "abortion".
You will note that there are different terms for different things.
Addendum on the "right to privacy":
If no such right exists, then Obamacare is completely justified in establishing a national medical database and accessing all of your medical records whenever they feel like it.
Likewise it opens the door to accepting that all the current laws banning this or that food are legitimate as again, you have no "right to privacy" in such determinations.
Similarly you have no "right to privacy" in how you educate your child.
In fact, using Michelle Obama's thoroughly Fascist statement regarding how overweight children are a threat to national security because they are less capable of military service, your lack of a "right to privacy" opens the door for pretty much total government control of every aspect raising all children, as well as determining how you are educated, what job you will perform, where you will live, and pretty near anything else someone feels is essential because you have no "right to privacy" in any such decisions.
Before dismissing the right to privacy, which is directly related to the security of one's property from search and the right not to be compelled to give evidence against yourself, spare a moment to consider just how much "privacy" is related to having a "private life" at all.
\”As far as Griswold goes, are you familiar with the facts of the case.
Single woman were banned from buying the birth control pill. I know. Why
don't you run for political office and try to reinstate this law\”
Oh, piffle. Just because something enjoys broad popular support, that
doesn't make it a Constitutional right. I realize libs have
trouble grasping that distinction, but there you are.
\”Wait until someone you love tells you they must terminate a pregnancy due
to an immediate threat to their health. You will fall on your knees
thanking God for Roe.\”
The mother's life exception existed long before Roe; common-law
self-defense, remember?
\”Oh, so you are in favor of an exception for the health of a mother. OK.
Who decides? \”
No, the LIFE of the mother. \”Health of the mother\” (which includes
\”emotional health\”) is a weasel-wording which is typically used to justify
the killing of full-term 40-week INFANTS. In fact there is NO excuse
whatsoever for the killing of a viable fetus, one which if born would be
called \”premature;\” surgical deivery (C-section) is the proper approach,
not murder.
\”Who decides?\” Doctors, in consultation with the patient. Duh.
Be honest, libbie: you favor abortion on demand for the sake of
convenience; don't try to equivocate with this \”health of the mother\”
crap. Fewer than 15% of abortions in America are performed for \”health\”
reasons: the overwhelming majority happen because for many women it's more
convenient to kill a child than raise it.
WOW!
Where in the enumeration of powers does the constitution grant the judicial branch the power to establish rights!!?!
The 9th amendment meant exactly what it said "….RETAINED by the people". Period. The purpose of the 9th (and 10th) amendments was to LIMIT the power of the federal government (all 3 branches).
Read the next amendment (X):
The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
For larrypuma, the Left has defined defending abortion as a mark of sophistication and, after all, who doesn't want to be in the "in crowd?" High school forever. Of course the mental contortions he has to go through to see it as such isn't at all an indicator of how extreme is his lack of self-awareness. MUCH.
Really. Wait until your wife is one of the 15%. You will have a change in attitude. As far as the rest of your drivel, you are going to leave a matter of life and death up to the woman and her doctor. I bet this will sit really well with the anti-choice crowd because some doctors may have more "liberal" standards than another. Finally, terminating a pregnancy at 40 weeks has been against the law prior to Roe and after Roe. You simply have no faith in American woman do you?
The Supreme Court is not establishing these rights because these rights are reserved by the people. But the Supreme Court must determine what these rights are just like they establish guidelines as what constitutes an "unreasonable search and seizure" or the limits of the 2nd Amendment, etc.
I've always been in favor of shipping Libs to Siberia. They could re-open the gulags they are just dying to operate.
It is only right and fitting that Virginia should fight to defend the document authored by her native son, James Madison. I'm proud of our state for standing up to the bullies in Washington and look forward to depriving DC of the services of our two worthless senators in the not too distant future.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
From all that I have read, the individual mandate is so integral to financing the entire legislation that it is not severable. That is, if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, the entire legislation must be repealed. But even if that is not the case, elimination of the individual mandate would force Congress to vote for other forms of taxation to pay for the regulatory requirements included in the rest of the legislation, thus making it politically suicidal to pursue.
Either way, I still maintain, defeat the individual mandate, and you defeat obamacare.
That child is a child, no matter what name you want to designate it as.
So off.
I think he's just insane. You would have to be to think that murder of a child is at anytime appropriate.
Not when they've been indoctrinated to think this kind of nonsense is anywhere near appropriate.
Absolutely, Goo. Can't turn us all into government chattel if our eyes aren't government as a supreme being. 'Gotta remove conscience and the ability to think. When talking to your "Lib" friends (misnomer, BTW) try to take note of how often the begin sentences with the words "I believe in…" and compare that to the frequency with which they do the same thing with the words "Ya know, I've thought about…" or something similar to that. Somewhat arduous exercise but revealing.
[...] ObamaCare by critics, hurts special-needs families because of a change in one o more… Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government (blog) – biggovernment.com 06/18/2010 Repealing ObamaCare: State SolutionsBig Government [...]
I'd rather not give the money to the attorneys and just have the states succeed….but that's just me.
The SCOTUS cannot determine what is a right and what is not. Those are granted by natural law. Read "5000 Year Leap" HLB. I know you wont, but you really should. The purpose of the SCOTUS is to
Let me point out your error in thinking (wish I had more character alottment):
You say: "The Supreme Court is not establishing these rights….."
And then you say: "But the Supreme Court must determine what these rights are just like they establish guidelines…"
You contradict yourself on almost every argument, HLB. You know why? Because proggies and Rule of Law don't mix.
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government [...]
Wow Intensedebates kinda sucks….
Anyway, to finish my thought before I got pinged out. "The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine if a policy, law, or suit passes Constitutional muster. Their job is to enforce constitutional law, not establish or determine what rights we have."
Yup!
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government [...]
Indoctrinated? LMAO. You think so little of women that they are brainwashed into having an abortion.
That is where your are absolutely incorrect. Go read the 4th Amendment. Regarding searches and seizures, it simply states we have a constitutional right against "unreasonable searches and seizures". So inorder to enforce the constitution, they must rule on what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. The criterion they must follow is not listed in the Constitution, so it must come from the court.
The 9th Amendment states in effect that although a right may be specifically mentioned, it does not mean that it does not exist and these rights are reserved by the people. Since the Constitution specifically mentions the existence of rights that have not been mentioned, who must decide what these rights are. If the Supreme Court does not make this determination, then we are not following the founders intent to have these rights protected. This is not a contradiction but following the intent of the founding fathers. You have the contradiction because on one hand you recognize there are unnamed rights, but you do not have a method of determining what these rights are.
The north could be renamed to: Cali
The south could be renamed to: Fornicate ( and be a territory of the USA, cutting them off from the teat )
Make sure a big fence is constructed and electrified. I would then go there and vacation, visit with the relations and spend wads of dough.
If we fail to take our country back we will be faced with a very harsh reality and have but one option: Revolution
Exactly like 234 years ago
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government [...]
[...] Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions [...]
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government [...]
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government [...]
[...] Continued here: Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions [...]
I don't need more of these sprout eating hippies in my city!
[...] » Repealing ObamaCare: State Solutions – Big Government [...]
"That is where your are absolutely incorrect. Go read the 4th Amendment. Regarding…"
Uh…yeah, thats what I just said here: ""The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine if a policy, law, or suit passes Constitutional muster. Their job is to enforce constitutional law, not establish or determine what rights we have."
Sounds like YOU are absolutely incorrect. Establishing a right is fairly simple. "Rights" do not include anything someone else must provide for you. I don't have a "right" to healthcare, since I cannot perform surgery on myself. I don't have a right to a car, because I cannot build my own. I DO have a right to build my own car, though, because I am providing it for myself. I don't have a right to nice clothes and good teeth, because I am neither a tailor or a dentist. I DO have a right to choose which doctor I use, which dentist I like and what clothes I wear.
CONT….
Saying the SCOTUS must determine what an "unreasonable search and seisure" construes is false. Your way of thinking is why we are in this mess. Congress decides what an illegal search and seizure is. They decided warrants were the answer. SCOTUS took a look, and apparently decided that it indeed passed constitutional muster.
You must be logged in to post a comment.