Sellouts & Chicago-Style Politics

[Pressing-On]

GOP forces vote on constitutionality of health bill
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
12/22/09 1:47 PM EST

The Senate on Wednesday will have to take an unplanned vote on whether the Democratic health care proposal is constitutional.

Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday raised a point of order against the legislation on behalf of a caucus of conservative senators.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...Morning%2BBell

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

GOP forces vote on constitutionality of health bill
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
12/22/09 1:47 PM EST

The Senate on Wednesday will have to take an unplanned vote on whether the Democratic health care proposal is constitutional.

Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday raised a point of order against the legislation on behalf of a caucus of conservative senators.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...Morning%2BBell

Thanks for the update, PO. I've been hoping and praying for a way to at least delay the bill until next year ... if not completely derail it from being passed.

I've read previously that the bill, if passed, will face a lot of lawsuits and legal challenges. This may be a bill passed by Congress, but ultimately stripped down to nothing by the judiciary.

[n david]

I have to laugh because I read how happy Reid was that the GOP set a final vote for 8AM tomorrow morning.

Surprise!

I completely agree with this action. In fact, I and several people I know were talking about trying to take the bill to court because of the ridiculous penalty imposed if you refuse to sign up with the govt's healthcare.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Thanks for the update, PO. I've been hoping and praying for a way to at least delay the bill until next year ... if not completely derail it from being passed.

I've read previously that the bill, if passed, will face a lot of lawsuits and legal challenges. This may be a bill passed by Congress, but ultimately stripped down to nothing by the judiciary.

I'm still trying to understand this. I'm getting opinions from both sides - it's unconstitutional - it's not constitutional.

I'm understanding that it is a "right to privacy" issue; having car insurance is different because you can elect not to drive and driving will hurt other people, Healthcare, on the other hand, only hurts yourself; that authority comes from Congress' “constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.”

So, I see the two things they will fight about is - the "right to privacy: and the "commerce clause".

The only thing is that the Commerce Clause, set forth in Article I, section 8, grants Congress the authority: “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

(1) Congress may regulate the “channels of interstate or foreign commence”. This includes the regulation of steamship, railroad, highway or aircraft transportation.

(2) Congress may regulate and protect “the destruction of aircraft, or persons or things in commerce. An example is “thefts from interstate shipments.”

(3) Congress may regulate economic activities that “substantially affect interstate commerce.

Mandating the individual health insurance would have to fall into one of the three categories. The first two don't fit, so the mandate would have to fall into category 3 in order to be constitutional. Congress is saying that category 3 is the exact and precise mechanism that gives them the power they want.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I have to laugh because I read how happy Reid was that the GOP set a final vote for 8AM tomorrow morning.

Surprise!

I completely agree with this action. In fact, I and several people I know were talking about trying to take the bill to court because of the ridiculous penalty imposed if you refuse to sign up with the govt's healthcare.

I think people are going to sit back and wait to make sure it is unconstitutional. When the "heads up" is given, you will see the lawsuits en-masse!

I wonder if Baron is following this?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think people are going to sit back and wait to make sure it is unconstitutional. When the "heads up" is given, you will see the lawsuits en-masse!

I wonder if Baron is following this?

I'm wondering if I could get one of those nifty internet law degrees in time to file suit after it passes....

Mo money, mo money, mo money...

[SOUNWORTHY]

Originally Posted by n david

I have to laugh because I read how happy Reid was that the GOP set a final vote for 8AM tomorrow morning.

Surprise!

I completely agree with this action. In fact, I and several people I know were talking about trying to take the bill to court because of the ridiculous penalty imposed if you refuse to sign up with the govt's healthcare.

Wonder how many of the dems will be voting with a hangover.

[n david]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Wonder how many of the dems will be voting with a hangover.

Hopefully some of the Democrats won't hear their alarm and sleep past the vote. I say someone needs to send Reid and others a big holiday gift basket filled with fruits, veggies, meat and cheese ... and my special ingredient exlax.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm wondering if I could get one of those nifty internet law degrees in time to file suit after it passes....

Mo money, mo money, mo money...

LOL!

David,
The Commerce Clause “jurisprudence” is a very, very, extremely serious and dangerous matter.

Let me see if I can make some sense of it. First, Congress wants to use this clause to require individuals to purchase a good or a service.

The Senate bill is erroneously saying that the individual responsibility is commercial and economic in nature. That it affects interstate commerce and that the requirement does regulate activity that is commercial and economic in nature, in that, economic and financial decisions are made about when and how health care is paid for and purchased.

So, by relying on option 3 above, they are saying that the activity that Congress is seeking to regulate is an economic activity that affects interstate commerce.

The question of “what class of activity is Congress seeking to regulate?” has to be answered. To rely on category 3, the mandating that you and I purchase health insurance, must be an economic activity that substantially “affects interstate commerce.”

The kicker is that the healthcare mandate is not regulating "activity" but "inactivity". So, Congress is actually saying that they are going to regulate doing nothing at all.

So, they are trying to covert "inactivity" into "activity". The court, in order to uphold some power under this existing doctrine, would have to conclude that an individual's failure to purchase healthcare insurance is an activity that is economic, that is, part of a class of activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.

Never in our history has the commerce power been used in order to require a person who is doing nothing to participate in economic activity. This mandate would be the FIRST time it's been done.

If Congress gets away with regulating and mandating the "class of inactivity", they will then have gained unlimited power. They would have unlimited power to regulate, mandate or prohibit any and ALL activities in the US. If this passes it would abolish any limit on federal power and ultimately alter the fundamental relationship of our national government and it's people.

That's it in a nutshell. It is so complicated that it seems a loophole will push it through.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

GOP forces vote on constitutionality of health bill
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
12/22/09 1:47 PM EST

The Senate on Wednesday will have to take an unplanned vote on whether the Democratic health care proposal is constitutional.

Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday raised a point of order against the legislation on behalf of a caucus of conservative senators.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...Morning%2BBell

Originally Posted by n david

Thanks for the update, PO. I've been hoping and praying for a way to at least delay the bill until next year ... if not completely derail it from being passed.

I've read previously that the bill, if passed, will face a lot of lawsuits and legal challenges. This may be a bill passed by Congress, but ultimately stripped down to nothing by the judiciary.

Well, they voted. The vote came back 60-39 - It is NOT unconstitutional.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00389