It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress has the “inherent authority” to mandate coverage

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Do you all understand now? They are the rulers and we are the subjects. Now everyone go about your business and forget about all this complaining about health care. The rulers of our lives have spoken.

States suing the federal government? Unconstitutional? Pffft..Obama is not concerned at all. They have authority over our lives. Didn't you hear? Our lives are covered under the commerce clause. I must be just a fool because I just can't seem to figure out how forcing people to buy something they don't want translates to regulating commerce.


"The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

en.wikipedia.org...


States are challenging the right of the federal government to impose a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose state filed a separate lawsuit today challenging the law, called the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said the president isn’t “concerned” about the potential legal challenges. Congress has the “inherent authority” to mandate coverage under the commerce clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, she told Bloomberg Television yesterday.

www.bloomberg.com...

We have debated the healthcare bill, now law, for months here on ATS. I can't try to persuade people any longer. Its done now. It seems the line has been drawn and there is no convincing either side that they are wrong. Its sad that we have become so divided as a nation but hey maybe thats all part of the plan.


I don't usually make predictions on ATS but I have one that I am almost 100% sure will happen. This healthcare bill will end up costing more than they stated and will actually add to the deficit. I'm willing to go out of a limb on that one.


States will suffer and many are already struggling to survive. Bankruptcy is just around the corner for some.


The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer.

States faced with unprecedented declines in tax collections are cutting benefits and payments to hospitals and doctors in Medicaid, the health program for the poor paid jointly by state and U.S. governments. The costs to hire staff and plan for the average 25 percent increase in Medicaid rolls may swamp budgets, said Toby Douglas, who manages the Medicaid program for California, which hasn’t joined the lawsuits.

“The states are coming through the worst fiscal period in the history of record keeping,” said Vernon Smith, a former Medicaid director for Michigan and now a principal at the research and consulting firm Health Management Associates in Lansing, Michigan. “Medicaid is the most significant, most visible and most costly part of this expansion and states fully expect to see increases in their spending.”


Everyone pretty much knows where I stand so I will leave it at that and wait and see. I am tired of the debate. I am going to go back to reptillian and alien threads for awhile and get away from this political crap.


Peace everyone....


[edit on 3/23/2010 by Erasurehead]




posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
You are absolutely right. The government has spoken. I'll just forget it and go back to my hobby of collecting semi-precious metals like lead and brass just in case some wish to engage in trade...or a group should happen to invite me to some kind of swap meet of sorts.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 




Is that a second or first line?

edit to add-

reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Okay, I think the mods will give me crap if I do not verify my position here because I agree with Ahabstar.

So here goes-

The CONSTITUTION, the CONTRACT between ME and my GOVERNMENT has been broken. They have broken it, so that means that all rights given to them are NULL and VOID.

Here THAT asshats, null and void, you broke the contract. AGAIN.

Sorry peeps, if you actually think they have any authority over you, you are mistaken.

Contracts of governance are set in STONE. If the government breaks those tenets, you have no more rights. They have EFFECTIVELY removed ALL of your rights.

Welcome to the tyranny that the founders warned YOU about.

Say HEY! Welcome to the Revolution.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
This is indeed troubling news that the government is assuming powers it is not allowed. It isn't, though, surprising or a change from any other form of subjugation.

reply to post by endisnighe
 




The CONSTITUTION, the CONTRACT between ME and my GOVERNMENT has been broken. They have broken it, so that means that all rights given to them are NULL and VOID.


I didn't sign the 'contract' so I don't see how it has or had any bearing on my life. Rights are never given to the government, they are always taken from the individual. The constitution was supposed to contain the power of the government and it failed miserably. What makes you think that 'going back to the constitution' will change the fact that it is a poorly devised scheme to begin with. Paper alone cannot hold back the immense power of government, only people can.



Here THAT asshats, null and void, you broke the contract. AGAIN.


If you want to get technical, the 'contract' has been broken since shortly after its birth. Our founding fathers were, quite literally, the first people to take a crack at breaking the contract.



Sorry peeps, if you actually think they have any authority over you, you are mistaken.


They have tons of authority in the form of lead bullets and thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. At least for now that is. There is always hope for the future of America because these things will always be intrinsically valuable, even when our money isn't.



Contracts of governance are set in STONE.


Paper beats rock. D.C. has a lot of paper.



If the government breaks those tenets, you have no more rights. They have EFFECTIVELY removed ALL of your rights.


If the government holds any authority over free men, these men then have no rights. All 'rights' are just privileges that the state uses to either take advantage of a freeish market, or quell the masses momentarily. All this, while the state grows.



Welcome to the tyranny that the founders warned YOU about.


The founders themselves knew that this system could not last without constant restart. Jefferson said himself that "Every generation needs a new revolution."



I do give the founders credit though. They created a system riddled with its own problems, but it was the best and most free system ever implemented on a large scale at that point in history. I just wish we could advance beyond that. It is time for a new Enlightenment. It is time for man to be free.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


I am not sure what can be done anymore. We the people have been ignored for years. It doesn't seem to matter who get voted into office both sides do not listen to what the American people want. Scary times are ahead for America.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Ahabstar
 




Is that a second or first line?

edit to add-

reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Okay, I think the mods will give me crap if I do not verify my position here because I agree with Ahabstar.

So here goes-

The CONSTITUTION, the CONTRACT between ME and my GOVERNMENT has been broken. They have broken it, so that means that all rights given to them are NULL and VOID.

Here THAT asshats, null and void, you broke the contract. AGAIN.

Sorry peeps, if you actually think they have any authority over you, you are mistaken.

Contracts of governance are set in STONE. If the government breaks those tenets, you have no more rights. They have EFFECTIVELY removed ALL of your rights.

Welcome to the tyranny that the founders warned YOU about.

Say HEY! Welcome to the Revolution.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by endisnighe]


I have something for you that will make you mad when you read it.

BUT

After you read it, you will begin to think about government in a different way.

The Constitution is a great tool to use in order to point out the hypocrisy of our criminal government, but I think once you read this, you'll have a different perspective of what the Constitution really represents.

Most anarcho-capitalists agree with Spooners interpretation, which is fairly radical. I think his interpretation is the only way to really have a free society and a limited "government" if you want to call it that. Accepting Spooners interpretation ultimately leads one to a private law society where there is no State monopoly on force.

fascistsoup.com...

Read the "Constitution of No Authority" and watch Tom Woods speak on the subject.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I can't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a twist now. Have you all been asleep for the last ten years? Significantly more egregious things have been going on for some time and most people couldn't have cared less. Now, all of a sudden THEY tell you the government is doing something bogus and you get all whooped-up. There have been plenty of reasons to freak and no one did. Patriot Acts? The wars? The 9/11 debacle? The Wall Street cluster-fart right under the noses of federal regulators that tanked the economy? None of that mattered apparently but because a right-wing conservative arm of the minority party TELLS you the government is bad NOW you get all freaked-out? Wake up for the love of God.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I agree with you. The constitution has been trampled on for years. People should have been outraged long ago. Better late than never I suppose.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


There is always some segment of the population that is pissed off at the gov. For me it started in the late 70's. Been getting exponentially more pissed with each passing year.

Trouble is most everyone is either stupid, complacent or oblivious so things that dont directly affect them like the war and 9/11 and even the Patriot Act may register as 'not being right' but they dont register as 'I am trampling directly on your throat'.

This healthcare thing is messing with people directly and intimately. So its harder for them to stay dumb, oblivious or complacent.

But really, to make this claim that people werent upset before today is moronic. Speaks to ones own stupidity, complacency and obliviousness.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Anyone who buys into the argument that the Congress has the authority to enact this mandate under the Commerce Clause is simply illuminating their ignorance to the world!


First of all, the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to RESTRICT the Federal Government's authority over matters relative to commerce. Let's look VERY CAREFULLY at a few things. First, what is "Commerce"? Simply stated, wiki defines it as "Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer." So, there you go - exchange of goods and services from producer to consumer. Now, what does the Commerce Clause state? Well, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Read that again paying particular attention to the phrase "Among the several states". That means commerce from one state to another. In other words, ABC Company in Ohio selling to customers in Idaho. The purpose of the clause was to ensure that states engaged in commerce fairly and equally without undue encumbrances to the seller. AN example would be that Idaho is chaging ABC Company a tarriff because the product was produced in Ohio - which would be illegal under the laws written by the authority granted COngress on the matter.

Now, allow us to look at healthcare. First of all, healthcare has ALWAYS been an INTRASTATE affair. What that means is that each state had been permitted to mandate healthcare services within their state. This is because the service originates in the same state where the care is administered - it is not subject to interstate import or export. Next, because of that the Insurance Industry has always been regulated WITHIN the state where the insurance is provided. The federal government has PROHIBITED interstate insurance sales citing that each state had differing laws and regulations due to protections provided by the states by the Tenth Ammendement. As a result, each insurance company had to set up practice directly in the state where it sold insurance and serviced policies and abide by the laws and regulations of that state.

So, as any INTELLIGENT person can see, healthcare is, always has been and should remain the jurisdiction of the state where service originated and was provided. Now, before some partisan hack gets all up in here trying to make some slippery slope argument about medical equipment being imported and sold over state lines etc and attempting to use that as some sorry justification, allow me to add... Medication, medical devices, medical supplies etc... ARE and HAVE ALWAYS fallen under the jurisdiction of the FDA and the Commerce Clause and are a SEPARATE TRANSACTION from the actual healthcare.

What is occurring here is a total power grab that extends beyond the scope of the federal government's authority. First of all, the federal government has NEVER forced a private individual to purchase a private product or service. Second of all, NOT having health insurance means that you HAVE NOT engaged in commerce to begin. This powergrab is attempting to stretch the Commerce Clause to include INDUCING ONE TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW!!! Read that again... They are attempting to invoke the Commerce Clause tpo adjudicate over something that NEVER occurred in the first place. Now go back and read the Commerce Clause and explain to me the logic of how they can justify the use of the Commerce Clause. Can't do it, can you!? Didn't think so... it defies even the most flawed logic!!!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Yeah, at the time of the Constitution's writing, "regulate" literally meant to "keep regular" - that is to say "make sure the states don't tariff each others goods or enact policies that violate free-trade."

This also applies to the "well regulated militia" - which is the same as saying "to ensure the people are free to drill and practice with the use of arms as they see fit without interference"

"militia" literally meaning "all free adult men" which was later expanded to mean "all people"




[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Good point mnemeth1! That is absolutely 100% correct. The term "To Regulate" means to "Keep Regular". That is to ensure that no one enacts any undue encumbrances upon the other, in which case Congress has the authority to step in and make regular the trade between the states.

The problem here is the complete lack of education regarding the Constitution and the continued ignorance regarding its meaning and purpose. Heck, I read about a Congressman citing Congress' authrority over the matter written under the "Good and Welfare Clause". The problem is that there is NO such clause anywhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, the "Welfare" is provided for in the intro to the COnstitution and has NOTHING to do with authority granted the Federal Government. Those are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED under the Articles and Ammendments!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Great post Kosmo. I couldn't agree with you more. The idea that this mandate is constitutional under the commerce act is laughable. It's scary that our own representitives don't even understand the constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join