All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Monday, March 22, 2010
HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT?
Funny, I didn't see that "Right" articulated in the Constitution.
Get your head out of your ass!
If it were a Right, they would not be throwing you in jail for not using it.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. There is no such animal as a "principled" Democrat in D.C. at the moment. Not saying Repubs are lots better. But they are not on the fast-track to tyranny.
If this law stands, it is the effective end of our Constitutional Republic. That is not an overstatement. If our Constitution allows the federal government to tell you when, how and even IF you are "allowed" to purchase medical services and health insurance, and that the federal government can compile and use an electronic medical records system to store information of the most personal nature on every person in the US, there are NO checks on it.
It can tell you to buy a certain kind of car, live in a particular place, use no or little electricity, tell you what innoculations your children must have, regulate what you say, what your pastor says, what you can and can't watch on TV, what you can and can't listen to on the radio, what you can and can't read on the internet, at the library, what books are for sale, what you say to people in public, what you say to your family in private. . .
There are NO limits.
I have heard there are something like 38 state attorneys general planning to challenge this on Constitutional grounds. If those fail, those 38 states make a majority who could call a ConCon and add an amendment "clarifying" the enumerated powers. Those 38 states could "change" the Constitution "back" to what it was intended to do.
If that fails, states will try to secede. That's when it will get ugly.
38 Attorneys General? That's good news. I didn't know that. I knew there were some, and I was heartened by that. Any Attorneys General challenging will take the issue to the Supreme Court.
Sorry - I heard a state rep this a.m. say that they were mounting a challenge and that they'd heard from something like 37 other states about joining or doing something similar.
The guy was from a state not in the list on Malkin's site - I am sure it is in flux. Hoping as more states firm up their plans, we will hear more detail.
States have huge unfunded mandates under this "thing" apparently, and as one governor said (Tennessee, I think) "and that is real money, we can't borrow it." So look for more challenges in the next few weeks, I hope.
9 comments:
There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. There is no such animal as a "principled" Democrat in D.C. at the moment. Not saying Repubs are lots better. But they are not on the fast-track to tyranny.
If this law stands, it is the effective end of our Constitutional Republic. That is not an overstatement. If our Constitution allows the federal government to tell you when, how and even IF you are "allowed" to purchase medical services and health insurance, and that the federal government can compile and use an electronic medical records system to store information of the most personal nature on every person in the US, there are NO checks on it.
It can tell you to buy a certain kind of car, live in a particular place, use no or little electricity, tell you what innoculations your children must have, regulate what you say, what your pastor says, what you can and can't watch on TV, what you can and can't listen to on the radio, what you can and can't read on the internet, at the library, what books are for sale, what you say to people in public, what you say to your family in private. . .
There are NO limits.
I have heard there are something like 38 state attorneys general planning to challenge this on Constitutional grounds. If those fail, those 38 states make a majority who could call a ConCon and add an amendment "clarifying" the enumerated powers. Those 38 states could "change" the Constitution "back" to what it was intended to do.
If that fails, states will try to secede. That's when it will get ugly.
Ro
38 Attorneys General? That's good news. I didn't know that. I knew there were some, and I was heartened by that. Any Attorneys General challenging will take the issue to the Supreme Court.
You got it backwards, Ro.
12 Attorneys General are challenging it.
That means 38 Attorneys General are NOT challenging it.
However, it is still early in the game.
This is good news.
Thanks.
JOIN THE FUN
Sorry - I heard a state rep this a.m. say that they were mounting a challenge and that they'd heard from something like 37 other states about joining or doing something similar.
The guy was from a state not in the list on Malkin's site - I am sure it is in flux. Hoping as more states firm up their plans, we will hear more detail.
States have huge unfunded mandates under this "thing" apparently, and as one governor said (Tennessee, I think) "and that is real money, we can't borrow it." So look for more challenges in the next few weeks, I hope.
Ro
Ro is correct, 36 (at least) are considering it. I just posted the Fox story with the information.
I'm glad to hear Ro is right, and I am wrong.
:)
No - you weren't wrong - Malkin's site had the states where the AG's have already talked about a particular kind of filing.
I just caught some of that (the 38 states thinking about doing something") this a.m. on the morning carpool.
I think I got them confused.
Did not have much detail, so thanks for the post.
Ro
By the way, 36 states is enough for a new amendment to the Constitution, or for a Constitutional Convention.
Post a Comment