In the meantime, HAPPY NEW DECADE.   Let’s hope it somehow brings the change Obama promised, but will not deliver.

It certainly seems the government has no rights granted under the U.S. Constitution to force “We the people” to purchase a product or service provided by private enterprise. To me it’s collusive in nature and wreaks of grand socialism at its worst.

Here’s the link to the Heritage Foundation for further reading. It’s my hope that these sorry, “statist” bills, if passed in their current form are challenged in the Supreme Court and for whatever the reason the court shoots these healthcare bills, both engineered for the benefit of private insurers, down in flames as they should!

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed121109d.cfm

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House was asked this question concerning Constitutionality, she said, “are you serious?” Seemingly this ‘dim star’ concerning the Constitution and our rights as citizens doesn’t have a “clue” no differently than most other issues she’s involved with as well as her brethren in the U.S. Senate… : |

Carl Nemo **==

Congress nor the presidency have ever been bothered with questions of constitutionality before. There’s no real reason for ‘em to start any new habits now. And thoughts of the supremes coming to the rescue? I won’t be holding my breath. Lapdogs have a way of agreeing with their masters.

It’s just my hope beyond all hope that some technicality like this might eventually throw a ‘monkey wrench’ into the implementation of this evil, corporatist friendly legislation. Most likely…not! : |

Carl Nemo **==

This sums it up.  I thought this exercise was to help people get better medical care and be healthy.  NOOOO.  It is to make profit.

 A good gardener knows compost untended has any number of problems, of which one is, it’s bent to ignite.

Anyone else here in the pile feel that it’s looking more like arson by the powers that be?

I’ve spent some time perusing the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution; ie., Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 and can find no interpretation concerning it’s use over time in that it could be used to force citizens to purchase insurance from private insurers along with penalties for not doing so. 

For the government to have provided a “public option” via Medicare or some new function would be one thing, but not for the government to  “collude” with business; forcing citizens to participate in the face of sanctions levied against them.  If so, then this will be a fresh interpretation of the clause with intent to move us all down the path of corporatist sponsored fascism with seemingly a socialist slant as bait for the unwitting populace concerning healthcare for all.  / : | 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

In 1995 there was a SCOTUS ruling in U.S. vs. Lopez affirming a lower Appeals court ruling in that the Congress of the United States had overstepped itself in its blanket useage of the Commerce Clause.  This was the first challenge to their useage of this clause since the Great Depression.  So possibly once all the facts of the case are presented then we’d get a ruling against their healthcare legislation; at least in the way in which they want citizens to pay for such care along with their mandated penalties for not doing so. 

***

United States v. Lopez

 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the Great Depression to set limits to Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez 

***

I’m sure a challenge will come forth from the hybrid versions of these two crippled pieces of legislation.

  Carl Nemo **==

Kent Shaw