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.

 

Feds: Virginia has no grounds to block health care reform law

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
One of the primary 'reasons' why many insisted that the government taking over healthcare and forcing citizens to buy insurance is because insurance was, for SOME people, pricey.

Of course, it is pricey because THE GOVERNMENT has insisted that this is a topic which does not allow "interstate commerce" and will not allow insurance agencies to sell across state lines.

So now it's interstate commerce and that's why they should control it? Which is it? If it's interstate commerce, why can't they sell insurance across state lines currently?

I would love to see Virginia and frankly every other state with a shred of independent thinking and reasoning fight this. I would like to see states follow Virginia the way many have followed Arizona.

So far O has been able to just appoint anybody and get anything passed he wants given the numbers in the house/senate -- so please God, let the individual states at least put up a fight for us!

RC

[edit on 25-5-2010 by RedCairo]




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
The truth is, the logical ramifications of this legislation serves to mandate all citizens to be contractually indebted to a private, for-profit, financial insurance institution, under penalty of law. Such a mandate is not, and can never be, "constitutionally" sanctioned without express changes in our social order. No third party, can oblige two free independent persons to enter into a binding contract should either party not wish it.

This law fails the constitutional test, unless the status of citizenship is rewritten to exclude free-will as a factor in contract law. Under this legislation there are no provisions for 'bickering' terms, or negotiating a contract, and thus, it is little more than the government mandating that the insurance industry be supplied, by law, with customers.... always.

I, along with the rest of America, am required by law to wait until I'm 21 (or until I've joined the military) to drink alcohol. It isn't a Federal law, it's a law in all fifty States. Why? Because the Feds (acting through the Department of Transportation) said to the States, "Either you raise the drinking age from 18 to 21, or we stop giving you millions in highway funding." And the States caved, one by one, until the net effect became the same as if it was a Federal law. So if they can't legally enforce ObamaCare(tm) at a Federal level, they'll "encourage" it financially by withholding cash until the States once again all cave.

And it wouldn't even be the second time they've done it. Seatbelt laws. Mandatory car insurance. The crazy dance of interstate highway speed limits, from 55 to 75 to 80 to 65 to whatever they feel like doing to us this week. Every one of these laws makes someone obscenely wealthy, and you can bet your ascot it was a lobbyist for that someone who convinced legislators to do it because only rich lobbyists and rich special interest groups get to make Federal laws. Don't have money? Sorry! You don't get a say! You don't even matter! You aren't a person, you're a bank account they can legally plunder at their whim! I defy anyone to look me in the eye and call the American system of government a "Democracy." But I digress.

It's not constitutional to enact arbitrary Federal laws that the States must follow. It is constitutional (and, apparently, traditional) to blackmail the States into "choosing" to enact the very same law "on their own." And guess what? They know all this. They know exactly what they're doing. They know the Supreme Court will likely strike the health "care" bill down. It's a stalling tactic, so everyone sort of forgets about it until suddenly, every citizen will find themselves subject to it anyway because their State "decided" to make it a law.

If at first you don't succeed, try financial terrorism. That always works. Welcome to America.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

...

It's not constitutional to enact arbitrary Federal laws that the States must follow. It is constitutional (and, apparently, traditional) to blackmail the States into "choosing" to enact the very same law "on their own." And guess what? They know all this. They know exactly what they're doing. They know the Supreme Court will likely strike the health "care" bill down. It's a stalling tactic, so everyone sort of forgets about it until suddenly, every citizen will find themselves subject to it anyway because their State "decided" to make it a law.

If at first you don't succeed, try financial terrorism. That always works. Welcome to America.


I accept the fact that there is a constant struggle between the federal, judicial, and legislative branches to cultivate a federal body, a culture if you will, that takes primacy over the states.

But I infer from your post that we agree the states themselves must exercise their sovereignty in whom they appoint to represent them..., politics be damned.

There is a troublesome character in the political machinery, it seems to be a subculture that is socially dysfunctional. There are many external factors to contend with, our almost dogmatic adherence to the monetary monopoly, serves as a good example.

I suggest that, impossible as it may sound, we may have to some day "vote with our feet" and literally exercise dissent to awaken the celebrities politicians, faux-intelligentsia, and robber baron blood-lines from their splendorous glorification and comfort.

Perhaps not. But the degree of debasement the American citizen is worsening with each step these servants-who-believe-they-are-masters take.

What redress do we have? If the body politic has usurped every facet of the system, and civil service becomes a ruse for control?

Take the Bill of Rights, add the Constitution and see what you get. The establishment, a well-entrenched mass of self-serving interests, will tell you that you CANNOT understand what it means, won't they? They will tell you that your behavior, in questioning their rule, borders on the radical.....

... now it is I, who digress....



new topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join