This is a very good point. Obama has wrongly equated the requirement to purchase health insurance as similar to the requirement to purchase automobile insurance. That is flawed because it is not a requirement by law to own a car. It would be as if there was a government degree that all Americans must purchase a car and car insurance whether they need a car or not, which is ludicrous (not considering that fact that the government now is part owner of some car companies).

 

The only way the government would even remotely be justified, would be if they gave every person within our borders universal health care and factored that into the tax system. Universal health care in NOT what the democrats and Obama are pushing though. They are pushing a bastardized hybrid which does not cover the all the people and increases costs for the already paying public with no net betterment of services.

We've moved beyond misinterpretation and even gross misinterpretation.

The commerce clause is one sentence. We need to ask the leaders of today's democratic party, what does the rest of the Constitution mean? What is the purpose of all that enumerated & separated powers; check & balance mumbo jumbo?

Why isn't the Constitution just one sentence reading "The government shall take good care of the people and the country."?

This is the party that taught us all about the 1978 FISA act, and 72-hour retroactive search warrants, when George Bush after 9/11 ordered the NSA to listen to satcomm originating in the middle east.

This is the party that call the Bush administration a joke?

 

"These are strange, strange people."

"Madness!"

Liberal Interpretation of the day...or hour....ACORN has a constitutional right to your money.

Citation...judge says so, goes on to write Federal budget.

Judge: Keep funding ACORN

A Judge just granted  constitutional rights to an entity...an organization.

 

How do you do that?

 

Also.....No more private property...that was yesterday.

 

It has happened before, Platypus.  It happened a few times in the 1890s, too.

 

I haven't read up on ACORN, but it may have been that the judge ruled that, since ACORN had already been promised some slush fund money in Porkulus, Congress couldn't go back and rescind it as it had already been passed into law--no tapbacks, in other words.  If that's the case, then the ruling would be lawful, and the judge would be right in saying it was unconstitutional.  ACORN shouldn't get a red cent in the future, however.

 

Still, given the crap Holder's been pulling, especially with the Black Panther case...yeah, I could see this being an abuse of the law as well.

Mr. Senty, I would never imply that youdidn't have it right. you always do, and I always appreciate the information and attention to historical accuracy more than you'll ever know....I'm just continuing to rant for a moment because I found an oppotunity...it's a free country?

---

 

Contrary to popular belief, I am not a constitutional scholar, but it was written in English, for farmers and scholars using words, every single one having a specific definition.

Nobody has a constitutional right to money, nor a freedom from broken government promises.

If a federal judge has jurisdiction over a case involving Acorn and a congressional committee, fine.

But when they say unconstitutional, I ask where.

Where in the constitution does it allow forAcorn to get money they were promised by law, then stripped of by law? Do the taxpayers who were promised money in the form of less government funding not have rights along those same lines?

Where in the Constitution does it allow for itself to be modified according to the interpretation of judge that it created?

 

Excuse me & Sorry...Just venting. The more I think about it the more it makes me sick. 

 

 

 Actually you have your history wrong. The Bonus Army was about getting their WW I bonus early. The bonus was legislated in 1924 to be paid in 20 years. That would make the due date 1944. However the Bonus Army wanted their payoff 12 years early. The government was right in not paying it off early. They could, however, had they been a bit smarter, offered say certificates for the bonus which could have been traded. This might have alleviated much of the problem.

 

In any case, Congress ended up giving in to popular pressure and releasing the bonuses eight years early in 1936.  So, no, the government didn't break a promise in that case. In fact they folded and gave up more (given the present value of money).

That the government breaks promises is like saying "Hey look! A blue car!"

That they breaks contracts is like a blue car with a white car beside it.

 

My head explodes where we seem okay with the notion that Acorn has a constitutional right to not being defunded.

But to be fair, it only explodes when on the same day we decide the government can force a citizen to purchase a product and has no right to a hearing on the matter.

 

 

Fun-With-Healthcare Reform (insurance company bailout)

A family of 4 making $88,201 or more (which in America is the equivalent of idunno..say a construction worker married to a school teacher) will be forced to carry insurance or pay $15,200.