• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Obama being tried for treason?

Requiring the public to be insured or be fined is un-Constitutional.

How about repeatedly lying to We the People?

Remember the Stimulus package that “we must pass now to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%?

Total bullcrap……just like Obama’s latest scare tactic and feeble attempt to gain support for his Socialized medicine campaign.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/president-obama-federal-government-will-go-bankrupt-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html

We require people to be insured for driving. Is that unconstitutional?

As for lying to the 'People'. I dare you to show me a politician (other than Ron Paul) who hasn't reneged on a campaign promise or lied to his/her constituents.
 
About that stimulus package...and I ask becuase I don't know...Isn't most of that money being paid back? It seems everyday on the way into work I hear on the radio another company that recieved bail out money is repaying it's loans early.

Seperate issue:
Now not part of the bailout, but part of ARRA, "Bama Bucks" is paying for the transit system I work for to re-engine 50 coaches over the next 18 mos. That will trickle down to Cummins West & who ever is their rebuilding plant having 50 more engines to work on and me not having to lay off two mechanics to R&R the power-pak modules.

I have seen & benefitted from the other side of the coin the positive side of this initative.

TARP funds are being paid back. ARRA is the Stimulus package, not a seperate issue.

Great that my tax dollars are subsidizing the company that you are employed by:gonnablow......but then again, I believe in Capitolism and not Socialism.
 
10th amendment, aka #10 on the bill of rights

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.

Nowhere is healthcare enumerated as a federal power
I'd say this is the best argument here.

Car insurance isn't required by the Federal gov't as it is not enumerated in the Constitution and is therefore reserved for the states.
 
It is not in The Constitution to provide Interstate Highways either, but we all benefit from them.

Two words here - Interstate Commerce.

While the Interstate Highway System was originally intended (IIRC) as a military logistic enhancement, the argument for it being put through was its use for interstate commerce - for which it is used heavily. Ask any OTR truck driver...
 
Show me where in the Constitution states that socialized medicine is unconstitutional. Just curious.

The 10th Amendment:
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.

Now for the powers of Congress (US Constitution, Art I, Sec 8):
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Don't see anything about providing for health care of the people, so according to the 10th Amendment it's in the states' power to provide health care if they so desire.
 
Two words here - Interstate Commerce.

While the Interstate Highway System was originally intended (IIRC) as a military logistic enhancement, the argument for it being put through was its use for interstate commerce - for which it is used heavily. Ask any OTR truck driver...

To the deaths of the railroads. It also has increased the mobility of the average american to travel this country.
 
Don't see anything about providing for health care of the people, so according to the 10th Amendment it's in the states' power to provide health care if they so desire.

but The Constitution does NOT prohibit the establishment of a National Health Care System either. Does it?

I think relying on The Constitution as an arguement against National Health Care (NHC) is weak. The exception... the power of the people to vote for their representative government. And obviously some part of that 68% (not my figure) that does not like NHC have voted for the Congresional persons that is now supporting NHC. Their constitutional chance to change their representative is during the next election cycle.

That position I can fully support, I said it before, I am so dissapointed with Nancy Pelosi as my representative that I voted for Cindi Sheehan to replace her. That doesn't matter anymore, I just moved out of her congressional district.
 
Last edited:
But the fact that the power to create Nat'l Health Care is not specifically enumerated to the Fed gov means that the gov does not have that power.
 
but The Constitution does NOT prohibit the establishment of a National Health Care System either. Does it?
strictly speaking, yes the 10th amendment prohibits it

however what they end up doing in this kind of thing is like unemployment or medicaid they make it a state program with federal funding

the federal requirement to buy insurance of a certain type will face constitutional challenges
 
We require people to be insured for driving. Is that unconstitutional?

As for lying to the 'People'. I dare you to show me a politician (other than Ron Paul) who hasn't reneged on a campaign promise or lied to his/her constituents.


to require everyone to have the same insurance for their vehicles would be unconstitutional.

this is the U.S. of A...we have rules, we have laws, but in the end, We have choices.

they are removing our choices. I sure as fawk don't feel the need to pay for your healthcare needs, much less those of illegals or deadbeats (which we ALREADY do pay. maybe we should stop wasting time and effort on federal health insurance and just remove the burdens of the system we already have?


Send Obama to trial. get him the hell out of office...he's absolutely destroying America
 
to require everyone to have the same insurance for their vehicles would be unconstitutional.

this is the U.S. of A...we have rules, we have laws, but in the end, We have choices.

they are removing our choices. I sure as fawk don't feel the need to pay for your healthcare needs, much less those of illegals or deadbeats (which we ALREADY do pay. maybe we should stop wasting time and effort on federal health insurance and just remove the burdens of the system we already have?


Send Obama to trial. get him the hell out of office...he's absolutely destroying America

You are required by law to have a minimum level of insurance. You can choose to increase that level of insurance, but there's still a minimum mandated level required. Seems to me that isn't much of a choice.

And I'm pretty sure that you aren't paying anything for me.
 
The 10th Amendment:


Now for the powers of Congress (US Constitution, Art I, Sec 8):


Don't see anything about providing for health care of the people, so according to the 10th Amendment it's in the states' power to provide health care if they so desire.


. . . the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. . . .

And you don't think that it can be argued that health care falls under the "general Welfare of the United States?"

Sorry guys, I just don't buy the unconstitutionality of federal health care system.

I may not be for it but this argument just isn't strong enough for me to agree with. I'm utterly convinced that a single payer option would be a mistake, but for entirely different reasons.
 
You are required by law to have a minimum level of insurance. You can choose to increase that level of insurance, but there's still a minimum mandated level required. Seems to me that isn't much of a choice.

And I'm pretty sure that you aren't paying anything for me.

I like how they do it in South Africa...

When you buy fuel, you (naturally) pay fuel taxes. Part of what is funded with fuel taxes (which, I believe, are comparable to ours...) is state-funded minimum insurance - akin to the 50K/50K PL/PD we're generally mandated to have here.

If you want more, you can buy a supplemental policy. But, as long as you're driving and buying fuel in SA, you're covered for the basics.

Perhaps do something similar with health care? Put everyone on MediCare (yes, including Congresscritters, but not including the military) and you can buy supplemental insurance afterwards.

Why not including the military? Dammit, they deserve full coverage, and should be doing better than they are (I hear) under TriCare now.

PD/FD and the like can have full coverage provided by the level of government that employs them - Federal, State, County, or City. FD personnel would usually be County or City, and PD could be any of those.

Employers would also be able to cover their employees with supplemental plans.

And, we need to fix this whole "out of network" debacle as well - being limited in providers can cause some major aches when it comes time for diagnostic testing and imaging...
 
You are required by law to have a minimum level of insurance. You can choose to increase that level of insurance, but there's still a minimum mandated level required. Seems to me that isn't much of a choice.

And I'm pretty sure that you aren't paying anything for me.
Car insurance is not federally mandated. Therefore, different category than federally mandated health insurance.
And you don't think that it can be argued that health care falls under the "general Welfare of the United States?"

Sorry guys, I just don't buy the unconstitutionality of federal health care system.

I may not be for it but this argument just isn't strong enough for me to agree with. I'm utterly convinced that a single payer option would be a mistake, but for entirely different reasons.
It would depend on the interpretation of "the United States". Does that mean paying to heal all of our citizens or does that mean keeping the country itself healthy.
 
. . .it would depend on the interpretation of "the United States". Does that mean paying to heal all of our citizens or does that mean keeping the country itself healthy.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but prefer to think that the "United States" means the "people".
 
I'd imagine that when referring to the citizens, they'd be more specific. The United States, IMO, would refer to the nation.
 
We require people to be insured for driving. Is that unconstitutional?
Um, how about this. There is NO Federal requirement to own a car, or to drive.
So, it may be an inconvenience, but IF you don't own a car(ask all those people who live in Manhattan without cars) you don't have any requirement to buy auto insurance.

So what would be a similar "out" to not get health insurance? Just stop breathing, I guess.
 
Back
Top