Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com has been doing a fantastic job recently of quizzing our nations leaders on just where in the Consitution does it allow for the U.S. Government to require as federal law a mandate that individuals MUST have health insurance.
You won’t find ANYONE in the Main (some would say Lame) Stream Media doing this.
Terry has quizzed folks like Senator Burris, Senator Akaka, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Nelson, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, and more. Now, he has turned his attention to our carpet-bagger U.S. Senator Mark Warner from Virginia.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) tells Terry that Congress’ constitutional authority to require individuals to buy health insurance is like Medicaid, Medicare and states requiring driver’s licenses.
Medicare and medicaid were created in the mid-60′s after the liberals gained a super-majority in Congress after JFK’s shooting. Just like a majority of folks don’t want the current legislation that is before Congress, folks didn’t want Medicare or Medicaid. Programs like Medicaid, that Congress has forced upon the states, are not only un-Constitutional, they are breaking the states financially. Drivers Licenses are NOT mandated by the Constitution. They are individual mandates by the states.
Senator Warner also talks about free loaders in the system who get treated in an E.R. But, isn’t taxing the rest of us to provide insurance for those same folks much the same thing??
Shouldn’t an elected official like Senator Warner, who swore an oath to the Constitution and whose only job is to craft laws that comply with the Constitution, have a pretty good clue where the constitutional authority for a particular bill comes from? People who serve in our government have no higher duty than to ensure that everything they do conforms to the U.S. Constitution since there is no higher law in our land.
Congressmen and women are not allowed to just make stuff up as we go. Congress is NOT allowed to just do whatever notion strikes them or whatever whim catches their attention, not if we claim to still give a darn about our own Constitution, not if we want to remain a free people.
The founders set up a limited government because they knew first hand the dangers and threats to liberty presented by a government with too much power.
What could be more dangerous to freedom, what could be more at odds with our limited Constitutional government, than a system that asserts the right to make health care–life and death–decisions about the very life of each and every American?
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Sen. Warner is wrong and
izoneguy (Diary) Friday, November 20th at 8:55AM EST (link)is a complete Obama foot washer on this.
There is no place in the constitution that says
I have to buy health insurance or go to jail.
If I go to jail – then I can get free health care.
Virginia needs to throw him out.
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
Senator Warner has made his millions so screw the rest of you!..nt
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Friday, November 20th at 1:14PM EST (link)…
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
Warner is a fool.
baserunr (Diary) Friday, November 20th at 4:22PM EST (link)He agrees that many programs are not constitutional, but won’t uphold his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution. Those programs that now exist that are not constitutional should be phased out. And the new ones that are promulgated should be quashed before they, too, arise to consume an ever-increasing portion of federal tax revenue. No congress can bind a succeeding congress. Do what you are supposed to do and change the law!
“The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts.”
It's not unconstitutional, but he is stupid.
Menlo (Diary) Friday, November 20th at 4:42PM EST (link)The income tax is expressly allowed by the constitution. Under the proposals, you don’t have to buy insurance. You will just be subject to the income tax increase if you don’t. The constitutionality of the spending is another matter.
The Democrats are are afraid to point that out because it would expose Obama’s lie on not increasing taxes. Instead, they trot out these analogies and anecdotes, irrelevant to constitutionality, in an effort to duck the question.
If the aim was truly to keep people from increasing others’ costs, then they would only impose the tax penalty, with back penalties, on the uninsured who sought care for which they could not fully pay. So obviously, that is not the aim.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter