At least 4 states seek to repeal ObamaCare

Fortunately, a constitutional attorney was my political science instructor my junior year in college.

 

This is what many said would happen. Also many said some companies would opp out of their insurance and get the government insurance. Keep in mind many companies are self insurance on their health insurance and pay an insurance company to administer it for them, it is rather costly.

 

Fundamentally, I believe this is the central issue.

The federal government is requiring citizens to buy a product (insurance) by force of law.

As far as I know, this has never happened before and seems to be patently unconstitutional.

Advocates of the healthcare plan often point to the "requirement" of auto insurance for drivers, but don't seem to realize that:

1.) driving is fundamentally different than living (driving is voluntary, living is a right)
2.) many people do not drive (3 of my 4 grandparents did not drive during my lifetime and 2 of them did not drive an automobile a single time their entire lives)
3.) For the safety of others, the public roads are a highly-regulated place (driver's license required, insurance, vehicle inspections, enforcement of traffic laws, etc.), and you may not be allowed to drive for various reasons.

 

And don't forget driver licensing, like marriage licensing, is a state function, not federal.

 

One Federal Judge has already proven that he's ready to ignore or reinterpret the Constitution in an act of activism concerning the legality of Obaminazation Care. God help us!!

 

That would actually be the Commerce Clause.

I'll concede that. I should have said promote.

It wasn't flippant. It was intended to make explicit what was implicit in the Constitution.

 

Actually, the Bill of Rights did what the framers feared, it fundamentally changed the nature of the document. The Constitution wasn't intended to be a list a rights. It was intended to be an enumeration of powers. In other words, if the power wasn't explicitly given in the Constitution, the feds couldn't assume it, and since there was nothing explicitly granting congress the power to make a law respecting religion, or the freedom of the press or speech, etc. the Bill of Rights and later the Fourteenth Amendment were not only superfluous, but a weakening of the protection of liberty.

Now that we're looking to the U.S. Constitution for unspecified rights, the document is being perverted to oppress us. Paul3144's corruptions of Article I, Section 8 are prime examples.

 

So you don't believe the Bill of Rights should be there?
Are you arguing for just the original document (and without the Amendments as well)?

 

I'm saying that the Constitution is not an enumeration of rights. You've got folks like the afore-mentioned Paul looking for the "right to welfare" in it, and then assuming the authority to taking the property of one to give it to another.

It's a perversion of the Constitution.

 

There is no Federal constitutional right to welfare.

 

You do not have to necessarily purchase auto insurance in many states, but you must show proof of financial responsibility.

Most folks are not aware of these laws.

 

Yes, I am aware of that. For instance, Texas requires either automotive insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility.

However, I was not sure of the laws in every one of the 50 states, so I made the broadest applicable argument using the most restrictive state criteria to make the point.

I didn't want to have the main point lost in the midst of niggling about more restrictive laws in certain states, whereby people could say that insurance was "definitely required" in their state, so therefore the federal government could require everyone to buy health insurance. Even if that were true everywhere, it is not an apt comparison.