Price tag for the health bill? Your freedom.
Clarity from Alan Keyes, writing about The New Totalitarians:
Once we stretch the meaning of the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses of the Constitution to include forcing people to buy health insurance, what will prevent the same logic from being used to force women in these circumstances to buy abortions? John Holdren, one of Obama's key White House appointees, has already "argued in a college textbook that compulsory government-mandated 'green abortions' would be a constitutionally acceptable way to control population growth and prevent ecological disasters." The supposedly compassionate pleas for access to health care were cover for the aim of forcing some people to buy health insurance they don't want, and others to pay for providers of health insurance they have chosen not to patronize. (That's the real effect of the language that allows states to "opt out" of the government-controlled health scheme. People in the states that do will be taxed to pay for it anyway.) By the same token, will the supposedly compassionate pleas for access to abortion services provide cover for the aim of forcing women in certain circumstances to murder their children, and forcing all of us to pay for the government institutions that coerce them into doing so?
Of course, the so-called "right" to murder our offspring is just the most controversial of the goods the new totalitarians mean to offer us. People have a right to a job so they can earn a living, which obviously implies the need for government institutions that coerce them to accept a job at whatever the government determines to be a living wage. People have the right to shelter, which obviously implies the need for government institutions that coerce them to accept shelter in what the government deems to be acceptable conditions. People have the right to nutrition, which obviously implies the need for government institutions that dictate a nutritional diet and enforce healthy eating habits. People have the right to live in a world free of pollution and the threat of catastrophic climate change, so government must control business and economic activity to curtail their harmful effects on the ecosystem.
People have the right to live in an emotional environment free of attitudes or words that imply disapproval of their sexual behavior, their rejection of God, their discomfort with outward displays of religious faith or worship, so the government must repress such thoughts, such behavior and such expressions of opinion.
Given all the goods they offer us with their new understanding of "rights," I suppose the next clause of the Constitution these new totalitarians will use to justify their power grab will be the one that speaks of securing the blessings of liberty. What they will fail to add of course is that, at the price of securing them, our liberty will be replaced by total government control. It's like that old saw about your cake. You can't have the blessings of liberty and keep it too. Only Americans get to do that.
Read more at World Net Daily.
Here is where he is wrong. The commerce clause is not being used to force you/individuals to buy healthcare. It's the taxation clause that is being used. Now the commerce clause can be used towards employers, but that is not what he is talking about.
His argument makes no sense. Now there are constitutional issues with using the taxation clause to force you to buy healthcare; the most they can really do is simply tax you to fund healthcare. The government has that power. So it will depend on the legislation is ultimately worded. But apart from that, he's off base completely. You cannot be forced to have an abortion as that in of itself would violate the very right to privacy that liberals claim guarantees a right to an abortion. One cannot have it both ways constitutionally. Moreover, privacy rights aside, under the 4th amendment and 5th amendments, would prevent such a scenario.
I wish these dudes would stuff it with the unsupported ad homonym arguments and make cogent arguments against the plan that have credibility;
1) it's too expensive and we cannot afford it in its present state
2) congress cannot use the taxation clause to force individuals to have health insurance; they either have to raise taxes or you cannot do it - impossible to have a revenue neutral plan;
3) the plan will not insure everybody anyway; hence resulting in the costs outweighing the benefits.
Any reform this big cannot be rushed. When they tried to rush getting to the moon, you had the tragedy of Apollo 1. You take your time, then you get to where you want to go.
nuff said ....
Mike, I cannot and will not disagree with your legal argument. But I think the scenario he paints is exactly where we are headed. At this point I have zero faith that the rule of law will stop the US descent into communism.
Unless Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas suddenly decide to retire and are replaced with Valerie Jarrett clones in the next 2 years, I'm confident that we will survive. We survived Jimmy Carter and that was a fate worse than a peptic ulcer.
Big difference in Communism and Socialism .... the first one screws you with the gun at your head; the second one screws you in your wallet with taxes and government control of certain services;
but until you have the government controlling the means of production en toto and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and thereby abolish congress, the presidency, and the US Supreme Court; and neutralize the military (which communist it ain't) -- it ain't gonna happen. We survived a civil war, a great depression, a second world war; the cold war; Jimmy Carter; and disco music, we can survive Mr. Know-it-All Obama and his mao loving minions. But we have to speak loudly and speak the truth and argue the facts with cogent logical arguments rather than hyperbole, ad homonyms, and fear mongering. That's the liberal's methodology. Hence why when you try to argue with a liberal and call them on their baseless illogical arguments, they just call you a wingnut and demonize you for daring to question them.
I can understand your frustration, but at the end of the day, there's only one thing that rules here....
it's money ....
Speaking of the Supreme Court, where will they weigh in? Can they call any of this unconstitutional? If congress passed a law calling for a paredon and people to be assassinated by congress as deemed appropriate without a trial, could the court challenge that? Is there any basis wherein the court could challenge this 2000 page nonsense?
Honey -- the Supreme Court does not rule until the case makes it way up the courts.
Congress cannot pass a law "calling for a paredon and people to be assassinated by congress as deemed appropriate without a trial."
There's several bill of rights that would not allow this; likewise, the President would have to sign it to become law.
And assuming this were to happen, then you file a lawsuit to seek an injunction and to have it declared unconstitutional in a US District Court.
My mom used to tell me that my grandfather used to tell her, and I'm sure he got it from Napoleon, and it is, "De lo sublime a lo ridículo no hay más que un paso."
It's a good maxim to live by.
As to the health care nonsense, whatever becomes law, if there is a legal ground to challenge the law's validity, then someone with standing will have to file a lawsuit. That is how the system works. And you know what? It may not be perfect, but it works.
Mike, I hope to hell that you are right. I keep hearing that it can't happen here, but IMO that very complacency could become our downfall. I remember years back hearing the same from Venezuelans, and look at poor Honduras. Out here in CA, there are people (renters) who are not allowed to smoke in their own homes. I’m not a smoker, but if they can legislate this “health” behavior, why not a myriad list of other undesirable/unhealthy habits/life style choices, etc. to be determined by a behavior Czar? Who is going to stop them if no one challenges them? Yes, I know, we have our iron clad rule of law, our courts, our separation of powers, etc. But I also hear the voice of Reagan reminding us that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction" I'd say we are a few decades short of freedom lovers generation wise.
Money-do you doubt that those standing between tyranny and us can’t be bought?
There can only be a couple of motives for Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the others foisting this on us:
They think they know better than we do what's best for us.
They want more power to "give" us perks so we must look to them more.
They seek to destroy the exceptionalism of this country.
They simply want to destroy this country because they despise it.
The thing is I can't believe they truly think any of this will work. So I opt for nefarious motives of all those pushing card check, cap and tax, and universal health.
Except so many liberals I know are otherwise intelligent people and yet are so easily swept off their feet by the rhetoric and cannot be persuaded that this can only lead to the end of our freedom.
Can anyone help me out here? I need to understand how what is so obvious to me is not understood by so many.