Showing posts with label Mandates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mandates. Show all posts

3/29/2012

Justice Scalia: “If the government can do this, what else can it not do?"

Posted by Brian

BULLSEYE!!

Scalia on Obamacare Mandate: ‘If the Government Can Do This, What Else Can It Not Do?' 

By Terence P. Jeffrey March 29, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - In oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week over the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care plan’s requirement that individuals must buy health insurance, Justice Antonin Scalia posed to Obama’s solicitor general a fundamental question that the mandate raises about the nature of the U.S. government.

“If the government can do this, what else can it not do?” asked Scalia.

Scalia asked the question in the context of quizzing Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on the administration’s claim that forcing people to buy health insurance is justified by the clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” In this case, the administration argued that the “foregoing power” that made forcing people to buy health insurance a “necessary and proper” act of Congress was the Commerce Clause.
Read More at CNS News
Enhanced by Zemanta

Justice Breyer: "Of course" Government Can Force Americans To Purchase Goods/Services

Posted by Brian

What is wrong with our country?  Justice Stephen Breyer gives a crystal clear illustration of what we face as a country.  Breyer and his ilk have infested government, top to bottom, with this type of statist crap.
Breyer has previously said that U.S. Courts can look to foreign law in reaching decisions, just don't cite it.

Maybe I missed something, but I have thought that those in government service, whether the military, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court take an oath to defend the Constitution. In fact, Federal judges take two oaths:

Oath 1:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.


Oath 2:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Strange.  I see nothing in either of these oaths of consulting the laws of, say France, if the U.S. Constitution doesn't address the issue before the court.  No, the oath's are clear.  If the issue or law before the court is not specifically addressed in the  U.S. Constitution, then the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional, or send it back to the Circuit Court if it falls under a states rights issue. The 10th Amendment is also clear on this:


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.


Stephen Breyer and his ilk are a danger to the liberty of the people of the United States.  The federal government does NOT have the authority to compel individuals to purchase a specific good or service. And don't give me the argument about the "commerce clause" authorizing it.  Statists have completely bastardized the original meaning of this clause with such asinine reasoning as "failure to engage in commerce is engaging in commerce", which was the argument made in the case of "Wickard vs. Filburn" in which the Court ruled that wheat that Filburn grew on his farm and fed to his cattle on his own property constituted "commerce", though the wheat never left his property, and thus didn't even fall under intrastate commerce, let alone interstate commerce. Breyer is in the camp of those who would delegate unlimited power of the federal government to regulate commerce.

Many have laughed at some of the Justices talking about forcing people to buy broccoli, cell phones and burial insurance during the hearings this week on ObamaCare, but the kind of rationale of Justice Breyer and many of his contemporaries have shown is no laughing matter.

It would give government unprecedented power over it's citizens, turning us into subjects, and mean the end of our country as we have known it.


Justice Breyer: Can Congress Make Americans Buy Computers, Cell Phones, Burials? ‘Yes, of Course’ 
By Terence P. Jeffrey March 28, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?

“Yes, of course they could,” said Breyer.

In the history of the nation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never done this.
More at CNS News
Enhanced by Zemanta

3/21/2012

Fluke Calls For Pro-Woman Litmus Test For Candidates

Posted by Brian

Sandra Fluke: darling of the left, whose testimony helped obfuscate the Constitutionality of Obama's mandate that religious organizations provide free contraception, into a "War On Women"
Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law student whom the left tried to pass off as just an innocent victim of a so-called, and trumped up, 'war on women', is making news again. Her first foray was, as we know, pushing for "free" birth control for all women as she testified before a congressional "committee".  Committee is in quotes, because we now know that this made-for-television event wasn't really a committee meeting at all, but a bunch of congressional democrat hacks who put Ms. Fluke and a sympathetic media in the room to give the nightly news their marching orders for the evening. The result was that the media and the Democrats were able to take the issue of whether the Obama Administration's executive order that religious organizations must provide services which violate their teachings and beliefs was Constitutional, and report that this was about women's health.
We have since learned the Fluke is a left-wing ideologue with an activist past, especially where it comes to special rights for women.
She now puts herself into the public forum once again to say that there should be a litmus test for political candidates, and that litmus test is that they should be "Pro-woman".  No Ms. Fluke, the litmus test for those seeking public office is that they be pro-Constitution. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not pander to this group, or that group. All laws which are passed by Congress should not favor any one, or several groups, at the expense of others. Sadly, we have seen an erosion of this ideal over the decades, and many politicians, both Democrat and Republican, have been corrupted by the power and money given by special interest groups.
Sadly too, as Ms. Fluke demonstrates, our law schools have become cesspools of leftist ideology which churn out such wrong-headedness as this woman demonstrates.
As such, we may see her in the future taking her place on the bench next to Sotomayor and Kagen.

Sandra Fluke: Politicians should be required to pass pro-woman litmus test to get elected 
Published: 12:09 AM 03/21/2012
By Michelle Fields -- The Daily Caller


Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke said on Tuesday that candidates running for office should have to pass a pro-woman litmus test in order to get elected.


Click Here To Watch Video
Fluke, an advocate for the Obama administration’s plan to force health insurers to cover birth control, was on Capitol Hill for a forum on “Opportunities and Challenges for a New Generation of Women,” in celebration of Women’s History Month.
Read More at The Daily Caller

2/16/2012

Obama Lied About Cost Effectiveness Of Contraception Mandate

Posted by Brian

HHS Prohibited Panel Developing Contraception Mandate from Considering ‘Cost Effectiveness’
By Terence P. Jeffrey February 16, 2012


(CNSNews.com) - There would be no consideration of cost effectiveness.


That was the explicit condition that the Department of Health and Human Services imposed on the panel of health-care experts it commissioned to develop the “preventive services” mandate that will require virtually all health-insurance plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and contraceptives—including those that cause abortions.
Enhanced by Zemanta

2/13/2012

Mark Steyn: Obama Contraception Mandate "Definitely Something For Civil Disobedience"

Posted by Brian

Steyn on contraception mandate: ‘Definitely something for civil disobedience’ [AUDIO] 
Published: 10:29 AM 02/10/2012 | Updated: 3:24 PM 02/10/2012

Although the White House appears to be wavering on its contraception mandate with an announcement expected later today, there are some indications the announced revision could still interfere with religious sensibilities, particularly Catholic institutions.
On Thursday’s “Hugh Hewitt” radio show, National Review columnist Mark Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,“ said this interference blatantly goes against the Catholic Church’s doctrine and made the case that this is cause for “civil disobedience”.
Read More at The Daily Caller
Enhanced by Zemanta

2/10/2012

Obama's Contraception 'Compromise' Is A Smokescreen

Posted by Brian
President Obama is expected to announce a plan to "accommodate" religious groups over a mandate requiring religious institutions to provide birth control coverage in their health plans.  This new "compromise" is simply a rephrasing of what has already been mandated - the insurance carried by a religious institution must carry birth control , regardless of the religious tenets of the institution.  So, what we have is an administration issuing an edict which violates the First Amendment, now saying they are only going to violate Freedom of Religion by a half measure.  First, there are no half measures in the Bill of Rights.  This is an attempt by Obama to begin to dismantle the Constitution by piece meal.  He is going after Freedom of religion first, which makes sense.  The Bill of Rights are those rights which are God-given. To make this a "human rights" issue takes God out of the equation. If you take God out of the equation, God-given rights become secondary. It is now a humanist issue, which is the goal of all totalitarian governments.
This is a full frontal assault on the very moorings of this country, whose foundations are of a Judeo-Christian genesis. The Founding Fathers believed that all of our rights came from God. Obama and statists like him believe that rights are given to us by an all powerful central government.
This is not about women's health. This is Obama's attempt to take religion out of the public square and to begin to dismantle the very foundation of what made this the most free, powerful, and wealthy country on earth.

ABC: Obama to ‘accomodate’ religious groups over HHS mandate
Posted by  The Right Scoop on February 10th, 2012

ABC is reporting that the White House, possibly Obama, will attempt to ‘accommodate’ religious groups by announcing this afternoon that health insurance companies will ‘help’ provide the birth control coverage, which I assume means an absorption of the costs by the insurance companies themselves. But unlike Hawaii, religious groups still won’t be able to ‘opt out’ of the coverage:
Read More at The Right Scoop

2/09/2012

Romney 2006: Health Care Mandates Necessary. To Do Otherwise "would be crazy"

Posted by Brian


Romney on Romneycare: First Subsidize, Then Mandate




(CNSNews.com) - In a presentation about his health-care reform plan delivered at the Heritage Foundationon Jan. 6, 2006, then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said that for his plan to work it would be necessary to first subsidize health insurance for a segment of the population not already receiving government health-care subsidies and then mandate that everyone in the state buy health insurance.
To do otherwise, Romney said, “would be crazy.” His speech was accompanied by a Powerpoint presentation that graphically laid out some of the basics of his proposal and the health insurance situation that then prevailed in Massachusetts.
More at CNS News

Enhanced by Zemanta