Grassley Joins The ‘Tenther’ Fringe, Claims Health Care Reform Might Violate The Constitution
Grassley Joins The ‘Tenther’ Fringe, Claims Health Care Reform Might Violate The Constitution
For months, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) worked with Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to try to forge a health care reform bill that could gain bipartisan support. Over the summer, President Obama showered praise on Grassley, saying that he was “sincerely” working towards finding a bipartisan solution. But over time, Grassley began to indicate that he was actually an opponent of reform. In August, he legitimized the “death panel” lie and sent a fundraising appeal asking for help in defeating “Obamacare.” Earlier this week, he voted against the Baucus health care bill.
Now, in an interview with NewsMaxTV, Grassley has truly moved to the fringe of reform opposition, saying that he thinks reform with an individual mandate might be unconstitutional:
GRASSLEY: Secondly, this is the first time in the 225 year history of our country that we have forced you as a constituent, any of our constituents, to buy a product. You know, you’ve been free to buy or not buy. But now for the first time you’re going to have to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, IRS is going to tax a family 1,500 dollars.
MARTELLA: In your view, is that constitutional, forcing somebody to buy it and punishing them through the IRS if they don’t.
GRASSLEY: I’m not a lawyer, but let me tell you, I’ve listened to some lawyers speak on this. And you know, it’s a relatively new issue. I don’t think we’ve ever had this issue before of having to buy something. And a lot of constitutional lawyers, saying it is unconstitutional or at least in violation of the 10th Amendment. Now maybe states can do this, but can the federal government? So, I have my doubts.
Grassley’s recent opposition to the individual mandate is surprising, considering that in June he said that “there isn’t anything wrong with” mandates and that he believed there was “a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.”
As Ian Millhiser has pointed out, claims that a mandate would be unconstitutional are weak tea. As the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, the Constitution empowers Congress to enact broad regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce.” This power includes authority to enact broad reforms that concern “economic activity,” and an individual mandate unquestionably falls within the scope of this power. As for Grassley’s claim that reform would violate the 10th Amendment, most tenthers overlook the fact that Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
Watch video of Grassley’s interview below (warning — video plays automatically):
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well he was already a deather so he’s right on track.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:42 amFor months, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) worked with Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to try to forge a health care reform bill that could gain bipartisan support.
He did? That is news to me.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:42 amConservatives read the Constitution the same way they read the bible: SELECTIVELY!
October 15th, 2009 at 10:44 amIncredibly, Grassley still feels he has to play to his base. There are actually activists in Iowa that think he’s too “liberal”. What more did that want him to do, scream “F*K YOU!” at Baucus, flip over a table, and storm out of the vote on Tuesday?
Even with Christie Vilsack and Bob Krause running, he’s more or less safe in re-election and the GOP base in Iowa will be hard-pressed to find a more loathsomely conservative schmuck than Grassley (you know, since King hasn’t shown any interest in the race)
October 15th, 2009 at 10:44 amGrassley Joins The ‘Tenther’ Fringe, Claims Health Care Reform Might Violate The Constitution
– - Grassley and his ilk violate the laws of common decency, morality and equality.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:47 amIt should IMMEDIATELY become law that ALL US Congress folks MUST have an IQ higher than a bowl of grapes.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:48 amI almost agree with this claim. The government mandating citizens to subsidize an already bloated industry that has nothing to do with providing healthcare may be unConstitutional but it certainly is obscene.
And highly discriminatory. Its time to get the ghouls out of the picture. G(houls)O(only)Party.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:49 amWhat an ass. Don’t these Repugs realize Americans want Health Reform? These idiots surround themselves with a bunch of crazies and watch Faux News. They are no longer connected to reality.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:50 amGRASSLEY: I’m not a lawyer,
Then STFU.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:55 amHey Grassy,
Do you know what else isn’t in the Constitution?!?
CORPORATIONS!
October 15th, 2009 at 10:58 amOK, all you tenthers out who want to leave, just leave,Please.You must not really understand how a democracy works, we voted Democrats into office to make a CHANGE, you lost so quit crying or leave.Oh, by the way we will have to take away all of your federal funding for your projects and such so now you will have to raise taxes on your tenther constituents and privatize everything and pick and choose who gets police and fire protection,who get to drive on the roads,who can use the library(if you don`t burn all of the books)and so on based on who has the most money to pay for these services.Quit crying because we have a person of COLOR in the White House and a DEMOCRAT!!!!!!
October 15th, 2009 at 10:58 amGrassley’s recent opposition to the individual mandate is surprising, considering that in June he said that “there isn’t anything wrong with” mandates and that he believed there was “a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.”
Yeah, but see… in june he thought health care reform was dead, so he could afford to say stuff he believed.
Now it looks like health care reform is building momentum, so he’s got to throw the kitchen sink at it. If that means directly contradicting himself in the space of four months, so be it.
I mean, it’s not like his words are recorded and can be played back or anything.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:00 amYes , because your educational resume` at the Iowa State Teachers College and some doctoral studies in political science at the University of Iowa , certainly over-qualifies you as someone who can certainly question the constitutionality of things ………….
BTW Chuck
I don’t recall you EVER questioning the constitutionality of any idea or action by the garbage Bush administration ; I suppose that’s merely a coincidence……….
October 15th, 2009 at 11:00 amGRASSLEY: I’m not a lawyer,
And you are not much of a senator as well!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 15th, 2009 at 11:01 amI would also assume that health care insurance would be really expensive because RED states seem to have a lot of POOR people who for some reason keep voting you RE-PUKES into office!!!!!!!!!
October 15th, 2009 at 11:01 amAs much as they all make me ill, what Grassley is saying is not all that off track. It would be insulting to require all of us to give a portion of our hard earned pay to the insurance companies, especially considering they offer no real service yet rewad themselves with huge bonuses.
I wonder though, why he doesn’t support the public option then allowing all to have coverage? See, we use the penalty tax to fund the public program. For $1,500 a year, I would gladly take the tax/gov’t option than to pay $6,000 to the greedy behemoth insurance giants.
This is rediculous to be talking about what’s fair to the insurance companies anyway (a public option would cut into their business), we need to focus on what’s fair for the people of this nation. Healthy, happy citizens are WAY more productive and creative.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:01 amGrassley: “GRASSLEY: Secondly, this is the first time in the 225 year history of our country that we have forced you as a constituent, any of our constituents, to buy a product.”
I guess it’s been a while since Grassley has owned a car.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:02 amGO HERE to tell Sen. GrASSley that he is gonna need some meds from his Cadillac Health Care, ’cause he’s delusional:
http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm
October 15th, 2009 at 11:02 amThese bozos have a tenth of the brains, a tenth of the thinking power of progressives.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:02 amUh, TP , thanks for the warning, but that video that plays automatically is REALLY annoying.
I’m leaving this thread ASAP.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:09 am- – BTW, what’s with the automatic video playing of the Newsmax twit? Geeze.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:09 amNo ginsoaked, it will be voted down by opponents of drivel on these threads.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:11 amginslinger says:
(I suppose this will be voted down by the supporters of the IRS enforcing the new HCR law)
No i voted it down for your ignorant comments.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:11 amThere is nothing in the constitution that says gays can’t marry. There is nothing in the constitution that says a woman can’t have an abortion. There is nothing in the constitution that says I can’t grow weed in my basement. You know, I’m starting to like the constitution more and more.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:11 amginslinger says:
——————————————————————————–
(I suppose this will be voted down by the supporters of the IRS enforcing the new HCR law)
October 15th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Claims the cretin who backs the group responsible for the Patriot Act ………..
October 15th, 2009 at 11:11 amCan you all please pass this along.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:13 amhttp://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/
Grassley also joined feingold to protect civil liberties against extending the patriot act. Everything is not left and right..
October 15th, 2009 at 11:18 amHow about promoting general welfare, and ensuring domestic tranquility? Could the general welfare of the population be tied to the citizens actually having health care, like the rest of the industrialized world? It is right there in the Preamble. I don’t get their objections on consitutional grounds… Now, if they just want to ensure that the insurance companies get richer, while people suffer, then they need to keep obstructing.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:22 amwreckingcrew says:
——————————————————————————–
Grassley also joined feingold to protect civil liberties against extending the patriot act. Everything is not left and right..
October 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Feingold was also FOR investigating the garbage Bush administration ; where was Grassley on that ?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:22 amGRASSLEY: I’m not a lawyer, {No shit} but let me tell you, I’ve listened to some lawyers {who? Name one liar, give their initials, anything} speak on this. And you know, it’s a relatively new issue. I don’t think {We know you don’t think} we’ve ever had this issue before of having to buy something {We are already “force.” See your undeserved pay stub, see the medicare/caid deduction. You are aiding in an “knowingly” activity.} And a lot of constitutional lawyers, {Name one, Eistein} saying it is unconstitutional or at least in violation of the 10th Amendment. Now maybe {maybe? OIC, pulling from your azz.} states can do this, but can the federal government? {Bing, Google, Yahoo it, you old fool.} So, I have my doubts.
I would love to cut your generous healthcare off. I would love to see you scramble for your healthcare before you die.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:23 amThis tenther lie isn’t even reasonable. It’s ridiculous and stupid. They shouldn’t be fit for office.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:25 amAnother charge from the batsh!t crazy wingnuts! Grassley should perhaps give Orly Taitz a call, she can get on this issue as soon as she is done with her birther conspiracy suits .: If she isn’t in jail, she will need the cash to pay off her ginormous fines.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:30 amFirst point
Anyone out there doesn’t want the vid clip to play, use FireFox and script blocker and flash blocker. (flash blocker alone might do)
October 15th, 2009 at 11:31 amiRi says:
——————————————————————————–
October 15th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Which Red State do you live in , tool ?
I have a cold right now , so I cannot get a good bearing on where your stinky stupid ass is ……..
October 15th, 2009 at 11:34 amIs Grassley the best shill for Insurance industry that money can buy? Seems they have too much money.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:34 amHow do bozo’s like this get away with this garbage when clips of these jokers can be brought up of them suggesting the individual mandate is the way to go right to their faces.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:36 amInstead of a mandatory purchase of health care provision just put a back end tax on health care provided without coverage.
If you see a doctor or go to the emergency room without health care then you pay a 25-50% tax or flat fee on the services received that will be collected by the IRS from your paycheck, a lein on your home, etc.
BTW, TP do not ever post a video that plays every time someone refreshes their browser. That is as stupid as a RePugniScum Senator.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:38 amWhatever iRi, just stay in your own state and don’t messy up the sophisticated states. It is pretty amusing that you redneck meth heads whose biggest cash crop is marijuana call us dopers though.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:41 amiRi says:
——————————————————————————–
Kinda makes me wonder why we allow you to vote.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Says the dipshit who voted for Bush the Boy Blunder (worst president in US HISTORY) , twice , along with the laughable McCrappyPilot/Bible Spice Palin ticket this past November.
You GOP tools REALLY NEED to be educated on the ramifications of your imbecilic statements……….
October 15th, 2009 at 11:41 amSecond point
This idiot A$$ley is all over the map.
Claiming that current payers will see their insurance rates go up by thousands, yet he is too ignorant to see that an INSURANCE company can jack up the renewal rate as much as 20%.
With nobody to control them.
Oh, almost forgot. We have the number 1 health care system in the world.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am36
iRBaboon
Moving to Texas anytime soon?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:44 amAre you always all wrong all day? My daughter had the flu in Germany and was seen by 4 doctors in 4 towns at no charge. Kinda makes me wonder how you even remember to breathe.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am40: I am old as dirt. I have been in all lower 48 states. I have lived in quite a few of them. We have health care here if you have money and insurance. How about all the people who don’t? How about all the people who have to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills even if they have insurance? There are many health care systems in the world that are better than ours. Remember we are 37th in the world in health care outcomes. Maybe you should reconsider your remark. I vote because it is my right and obligation to do so, not because you “allow” me to.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:46 amGrASSley’s tenther argument kind of falls apart in the face of existing Medicare requirements.
Part A is essentially mandatory because it is paid for through FICA taxes prior to the beneficiary’s retirement. That sure sounds to me like a “forced purchase of a product” as GrASSley defines it.
Furthermore, the incentive to pay for Part B is pretty harsh in view of the 10 percent penalty for declining it at age 65 and opting in at some future date.
GrASSley is p*ssing up a rope with his latest argument. What else is new? It’s what republicans do.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:46 amIf good Senator Grassley is troubled by Constitutional issues he might do well to read its first sentence. It goes…
What’s more important to the public’s general welfare than its health?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:47 amiRi says:
——————————————————————————–
Kinda makes me wonder why we allow you to vote.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Insect
It’s the US Constitution that ALLOWS me to vote , you imbecile ; you have absolutely nothing to do with it.
And believe me : you could NEVER stop me , even if you wanted to , and/or tried ……….
October 15th, 2009 at 11:50 amShorter Assley:
“Privatize everything!!”
October 15th, 2009 at 11:52 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I’m sure that a majority of commenters here are opposed to the outcome of Raich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
October 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
By going off the deep end like this Grassley could put himself in trouble with the Iowa voters in 2010. He has always done a pretty good job of masking just how right wing his views are. This unmasking could well be his downfall. Let’s hope so.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pmiRi says:
——————————————————————————–
I bet you’re one of those people I see on the news who along with the illegal Mexicans fill up the emergency room every time you get a sniffle. Typical Obama voter.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
That’s pretty ironic (as well as laughable and stupid) , coming from someone who worships a fat , lying , moronic blob , who used a boil on his prodigious ass as a medical reason for avoiding military service …….
October 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pmiRi says:
——————————————————————————–
October 15th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
You just better hope that the right to vote never comes down to a certain IQ level , tool ; there is no way in hell that you and 5 other similarly-minded GOP stooges COMBINED would pass that test………
October 15th, 2009 at 12:25 pmThe government is a corporation (run by and for other corporations).
October 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pmconservative guy says:
——————————————————————————–
If the health care bill is signed into law it will be challenged in court.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
By whom ?
Orly Taitz …….?
Great , you and your retarded ilk are on your way……..
October 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
.
WHY DON’T AMERICANS DESERVE AFFORABLE HEALTH CARE?
.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pmAlejandro says:
——————————————————————————–
I’m curious if any TPers are “tenthers” when it comes to marijuana.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
What in the hell are you talking about ?
Marijuana has been classified as ILLEGAL by the US government ; how are cannabis and healthcare comparable in any way ?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pmiRi says:
——————————————————————————–
October 15th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
What is “smart” about backing a group or individual with absolutely zero chance of winning , you galactically stupid tool ?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pmThe logic of some on the right doesn’t make good sense from an economic point of view. They say don’t provide unemployment benefits to people losing their jobs, don’t help people avoid losing their jobs, don’t help people from losing their homes, and at the same time say keep government small. Impoverishing a large percentage of a nation’s population decreases the wealth of the nation, overall. Economic issues require economic solutions, not ideological solutions. Denying a nation’s citizens access to affordable health care has the same long-term outcome. They encourage the uninsured to use emergency rooms for their health care needs, with no mention made of the fact that care in emergency rooms is more expensive than seeing a primary care doctor, or that the taxpayers foot the bill for the emergency services of the uninsured. Increasing the number of uninsured who receive treatment in emergency services will increase taxes. The republican positions on these issues is a prescription for disaster at both national and state levels.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pmIs that why they called it the Voting Rights Act, and not the Voting Privileges Act??
October 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pmThat’s because it doesn’t rely on logic – it relies on emotional, jingoistic appeals to ideological tenets that have never obtained in the real world.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm64 – why would anyone need to appeal to the tenth amendment to indict the Rockerfeller Drug Laws…
why are you so bad at this that you have to insinuate anything about anyone else’s use or non-use of recreational cannabis?
you’re another of the child-trolls, aren’t you?
11 years old, with a precocious-for-your-age vocabulary, and a bunch of incoherent talking points inherited from your Fundy parents.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pmGrassley has filled his dance card with insurance industry execs and danced every dance possible.
As far as I’m concerned, he has lost any shred of honor or dignity that he may possibly have previously posessed.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pmsaid previously: Voting is a privilege and not a right. Consequently the law can be changed to revoke your privilege
You seem to be missing the idea that rights can be abridged or removed for various causes.
Thus you can be cited for yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater (Freedom of Speech)
A felon may be barred from having a firearm (even though the Right to Bear Arms is part of the Bill of Rights)
October 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pmiRi says:
MCMetal says:
It’s the US Constitution that ALLOWS me to vote , you imbecile ; you have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Indeed, “ALLOW” is the key word. Voting is a privilege and not a right. Consequently the law can be changed to revoke your privilege.
McMetal is correct and you are wrong.
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.
The only conditions on voting rights are age. Each state is free to establish a voting age lower than 18 years old (See the 26th Amendment). The only other disqualification from voting is felons and even that has been repealed in most states. All other voting restrictions are considered highly suspect by the SCOTUS and most likely will be struck down. The Voting Rights Act goes further and prohibits all sorts of artifices that impair the right to vote.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pmIt’s a constitutional argument. The title of this post invokes the 10th amendment, which says that the federal government does not have powers not delegated to it.
I’m thinking that most people here are for the legalization of marijuana, at least for medicinal purposes. The only reason the federal government says it has the power to ban it is the commerce clause, even when Raich was growing and consuming all her marijuana on private property.
And how does it relate to health care?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
This is a matter of the tenth amendment. It’s a question about the powers of the federal government versus the power of the states. Can the federal government mandate that the citizens of a certain state refrain from consuming some forms of medicine and then force them to buy others? Or do the states have the power to protect their citizens from federal violations of their rights?
This is the question.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pmThe US government is not a corporation. It is bought and paid for by corporations that have bought and paid for the RePugniScum Party.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pmWhy did the prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment and then the prohibition of almost all other mind altering substances only required an act of congress?
The constitution changed. Well, really the case law that interprets the constitution changed. People in 1919 realized that it would be unconstitutional to just ban alcohol across the whole country. So they knew that had to amend the constitution.
By the time the Controlled Substances Act rolled around the “constitution” changed so much that now everything was considered interstate commerce. Congress could ban what it pleased.
But based on the logic espoused here by many, Congress could have justified the banning of alcohol by saying it promotes the general welfare. No amendment necessary. People in 1919 weren’t that stupid. They were just too stupid to realize the repercussions of banning alcohol. But, remember what they called themselves back then? Starts with a P.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:09 pmhttp://www.answers.com/corporation
n.
1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
@ 53. aaronk says: “This power includes authority to enact broad reforms that concern “economic activity,” and an individual mandate unquestionably falls within the scope of this power. As for Grassley’s claim that reform would violate the 10th Amendment, most tenthers overlook the fact that Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”” 1st of all, forcing someone to purchase somethins isn’t the same as “lay & collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” 2nd, how could forcing someone to purchase something fall within the scope of “economic activity”? I have heard that Orange Juice is very healthy for individuals to drink….perhaps we should enact legislation forcing all individuals to purchase at least 1 gallon per week? October 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Watch your punctuation and spelling, Aaron. You’re getting a little sloppy there.
In fact, there’s no need to levy fines on people who don’t buy into an insurance program as part of a universal mandate. All that has to be done is to bump up the taxes that go to fund Medicare, etc.; the FICA taxes. Then allow those who do purchase insurance through an employer, or individually, deduct their individual contribution in whole or in part from their FICA.
And let those who don’t buy into an insurance program pay full freight at ERs, etc, as well as get hammered by FICA. There would still need to be something to prevent discrimination in taxes and care, and hammering on, for those who are completely priced out of the private market.
That’s not to say that I advocate doing any of that. I’m merely pointing out that there are relatively simple methods for putting a universal mandate in place, particularly at the consumer level.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pmAlejandro says:
This is a matter of the tenth amendment. It’s a question about the powers of the federal government versus the power of the states.
Not true. Raich raised the 10th Amendment as a basis for barring the fed from banning drugs when a state permits the drug. The court said the banning by feds was a legitimate exercise of the Commerce authority and consequently, did not reach any other Constitutional arguments. All previous modern court precedents have taken a broad interpretation of the Commerce clause.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pmiRi@40 said,
October 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pmYou do not “allow” anyone to vote. You seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur, a form of mental illness. Please seek medical assistance for your form of insanity before you hurt yourself or others.
When you see a court case involving a corporation what is the name of the case?
Corporation v. Person
And when a state or the federal government is involved?
California v. Person
United States v. Person
=corporation.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pmI said that Raich raised 10th amendment questions. 10th amendment questions are ALWAYS about federal v. state power (or personal rights). That’s what a 10th amendment question IS.
Raich involved the commerce clause AND the 10th amendment.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:19 pmAlejandro says:
I said that Raich raised 10th amendment questions. 10th amendment questions are ALWAYS about federal v. state power (or personal rights). That’s what a 10th amendment question IS.
Raich involved the commerce clause AND the 10th amendment.
Raich raised the 10th Amendment and that issue was not decided because the court did not need to consider that issue. By affirming the use of the Commerce Clause, the Court implicitly dismissed any 10th Amendment claims as not a violation of that amendment. Therefor, no violation of the 10th Amendment.
Next.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:24 pmFascist Republicans won’t be voting once the wingnut roundup inters them in a nice FEMA gulag.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:28 pmAlejandro says:
This is a matter of the tenth amendment. It’s a question about the powers of the federal government versus the power of the states.
You Lie! ;)
October 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pmMost people I know, who have actually read the 10th Amendment, would say that it grants the final authority to the people of our country. If enough of us want health care reform? The federal government is required to act on our wishes.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pmDo you get paid to lie, or is it just a hobby.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pmAfter what you Republican a$$holes did in the 2000 election, I don’t ever want to hear you talk about states rights again.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pmIdjit says @ 59,
TheRIGHT to vote is the settled law of the land Idjit. It is also, in my opinion an Obligation as a citizen in a democracy to vote.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm“GRASSLEY: I’m not a lawyer, but let me tell you, I’ve listened to some lawyers speak on this.”
Ah, stop right there, Assley. He listened to “some lawyers” and that what is what has made the lizard man Senator an expert on how the healthcare reform might violate the Constitution???? lol Assley is a gift that keeps on giving. Stay classy, Chuck.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:09 pmWhile that definition truly defines a corporation it in no way defines a government.
If the US is a corporation then how do I sell my stock and get out of this bullsh|t?
You are stupid.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pmginslinger.
It was voted down because you are stupid. A worthless ignorant punkass troll pushing the stupidest propaganda imaginable that only the stupidest people on the planet could take seriously. Keep snivelling like the punk you are about getting your stupid posts voted down MORON. I love to laugh at morons as stupid as you
October 15th, 2009 at 9:19 pmR
You stupid un-American piles of dogshit who love to kill Americans in stupid wars and starve children can kiss my ass. You are stupid. I mean unbelievably stupid. This can in NO WAY be considered unconstitutional. Your ignorant take on this issue has been taken apart a dozen times. Only morons stupider than tile grout can possibly take it seriously. Read article 1 which makes it clear then just STFU until you grow a brain. You worthles, ignorant punkass troll.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:22 pmFirst, you can’t use the preamble of the constitution [promote the general welfare... etc] as a means to legislate – that has been well established in law.
In the health care bills current form, with the individual mandate, I believe there will be several constitutional issues.
1. The 4th Amendment – “persons or things to be seized”
2. The 5th Amendment – “nor shall private property be taken”
3. The 13th Amendment – “nor involuntary servitude”
The 10th Amendment will probably be used as an issue as well in a legal argument. Some here may not like that but the Constitution LIMITS the power of the federal government to certain things it can and can not do. The commerce clause has been used (and abused) by Congress but never in regards to requiring a citizen to purchase something from a private (Insurance) company.
In its current form, if this bill becomes law – the Supreme Court will strike it down. Like it or not…
October 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pmOver the summer, President Obama showered praise on Grassley. vajina estetigi
October 21st, 2009 at 5:51 am