Gas price up a $1 a gallon

Show us the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to provide "free treatment for cancer."

Where do you think the funds for this "free treatment" are going to come from after your buddy Barack and his henchmen in Congress have finished the job of completely bankrupting this country?

Whoops! It's unconstitutional to provide free treatment for cancer! I guess we need to shut down Medicare, then.

--scott

You are evading the question. The Constitution is a grant of limited powers to the federal government. (See Amenment 10.) This being the case, where in that document do you find the authority to provide for "free treatment for cancer?" Have you even read it? Ever?

You are also evading the question of how you expect to pay for this "free" treatment, particularly when other countries can no longer be suckered into buying trillions of dollars of our debt.

To answer your question: If you have any respect for freedom, liberty, limited constitutional government, and the rule of law, then yes, Medicare needs to be shut down. It should never have been permitted in the first place in the abscence of a Constitutional amendment.

As judge Janice Rogers Brown has observed, there is simply no way to fit the New Deal or the Great Society into the framework of the Constitution. Obamacare falls into the same category. Your buddy Barack has crumpled up what was left of the Constitution and left it laying by the side of the road for dead.

Who says treatment of cancer is free? For an 80 year old person you may be able to say that it has been prepaid.

Well that is correct. But those countries can not only bankroll the US but also pay for the health care of their citizens. The whole reason that Washington did something about health care is that it was becoming increasingly obvious to any one who doesn't have their head buried in the sand that the US has the most expensive health care while at the same time statistical analysis indicates there is little to show for that expense. That is not to say what Washington did is going to solve anything, but it was an attempt to make it look like they weren't just twiddling there fiddles while Rome burned.

The fact is that if current trends continue, within the next 10 years there will be third world countries that will have significantly better health statistics than the US does. The US is already at the bottom of the pile for advanced nations but when the citizens of countries like Cuba are living longer than US citizens yet pay only a small fraction of the cost for health care you have to wonder how long the US citizen is going to accept being screwed like that.

Well if that were really the choice then there would likely be an amendment pretty damn quick.

In case you haven't heard the New Deal was 80 years ago.

-jim

Not that there was much left of it after Bush & his henchmen were finished with it...

I'd look in the preamble under "promoting the general welfare" personally.

But, if you require that everything has to be specifically enumerated as a line in the constitution, we'd better get rid of the national transportation system and shut down all the highways. Regulation of gasoline quality? I don't see anything about that in the constitution, so we'll have to shut that down and become like Mexico where you have to try a couple gallons at a station and see if it's good before filling your tank. What about NASA? I don't see space exploration anywhere in the constitution either. Also, the only mention of the military is to "provide for the common defense" so we'll have to get rid of all those nasty offensive weapons and stop promoting wars abroad.

I've lived in countries where the government didn't do anything. It was not a pleasant experience.

Take a look at the numbers and see who is paying for it right now. For the most part, providing good medical care is cheaper than providing bad medical care.

I think it was Jefferson whose attitudes you are objecting to rather than Obama's.

But I do suggest you read some of what Jefferson has said about the thing. You might also want to try looking over the actual health care proposals and some of what Obama has said. I disagree with a lot of it too, but some of it I strongly support, and it's certainly an improvement over the horrible disaster we've got right now.

--scott

Roger Blake wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@usenet.eternal-september.org:

Who said anything about the constitution having anything to do with Medical care? Pure nonsence anyways. The constitution (of *anything*) is the contraints under which an administration runs. Yours puts absolutely no contraints on what the federal government can spend tax money on. Hell you can even give it in buckets to a company run by the VP if you like. Sound familiar?

However the phrase "a government of the people for the people, by the people" certainly comes to mind as something *way* too many people in the US have forgotten.

He's not my "buddy" nor did he "bankrupt" the US. That was done by scrub in his final months.

Every other developed country in the world has government run medical care. The fact that the US isn't developed enough to have it is merely a sign that your political system is broken and no longer serves the people who allegedly put them in power. Time for another tea party.

It's not free. You have to buy it. And if you don't you pay a penalty.

Who will care?

Then why is the government making it their business?

If anything, that comes under State's Rights. Obungler has now usurped that and pretty much voided the Constitution, since our elected officials are supposed to do what we say, and they totally ignored the loud NO! we sent them.

Psalm 109:8

Bush was nowhere near thrashing the Constitution as Obungler is.

Bullshit...

Your just a delirious drunkard that likes to make up your own version of reality. I'm not much in favor of the current law, but the fact is Obama ran on a promise of delivering a health care reform law. If people didn't want it they wouldn't have elected the guy who said he would get it passed.

Why The Healthcare Bill Violates The United States Unconstitution.

They (''They'') have those underground bunkers.Shoot, I would much prefer to stay Topside. cuhulin

The way i understand the new law: In four years when this provision goes into effect, everyone will be required to pay an additional $750 in health care tax as part of the income tax. If the taxpayer already has a minimal health insurance coverage then he or she will get an exemption on that particular income tax requirement. This is not much different than getting tax deductions for home mortgage payments. Do you interpret that part of the tax code to mean that mean the government is forcing you to buy a home?

-jim

Both current parties are fulla s__t, and both need to be turned out of office en masse. (actually more like 1.5 parties- they are more alike than they are different.)

I think we need to try it without ANY political parties for a couple decades. Elect the man or woman based on what THEY say. Wonder how they would make committee assignments if everyone was an independent?

It was never supposed to be a life-long career. None Of The Above in '10 and '12!

Not only that, but make all political contributions illegal. Treat them the same as paying off a cop for favor.

Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not the corporation with the most money to contribute.

aemeijers wrote in news:S_KdnYaWLOcWBDLWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Do what the greeks did. Select a citizen at random.

It started way before Bush, though he certainly did his part. Obama, Pelose, and company seem intent on destroying the rest.

I'd look at the historical basis of that personally, and discover that it is supposed to be a restrictive rather than an expansive clause, such as what James Madison had to say about it:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Likewise, the much-abused commerce clause was intended to be restrictive, its intent was to prevent tarriffs and trade wars between the states, to to have central government managing every aspect of our lives. Don't take my word for it, Madison said so himself:

"Yet it [commerce clause] is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." -- James Madison

The words of the Constitution do not exist in a vacuum, the Framers left behind plenty of evidence as to what their intentions were.

Given that a fundamental axiom is that the intent of the law maker is the force and intent of the law, how do we get to an authoritarian central government dictating to individuals that they must buy specific products and services without shredding the Constitution into confetti?

So you believe that "the end justifies the means" and that government should be given unlimited power to do whatever politicians decide is needed at any given moment. May your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.

(Of course any of the items you mention could be lawfully implemented via a constitutional amendment. The constitution was designed as an extensible document.)

Looking over Jefferson's concerns about authoritarian government in places such as:

I don't see much that would lend support to the objectives of the thugs currently in power.

I disagree with ALL of it. My health is not a federal issue.

I see no "horrible disaster." Even if there were, in the absense of a Constitutional amendment I certainly see no lawful authority for the scheme that has been enacted.