OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency, less freedom and reduced liberty.

H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency, less freedom and reduced liberty.

We should be able to depend upon our government, and if we could depend upon our government for justice we would not be reduced to depending upon the government for some form of welfare.

Fido wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency, less freedom and reduced liberty.

We should be able to depend upon our government, and if we could depend upon our government for justice we would not be reduced to depending upon the government for some form of welfare.

Today's Obama government is not one you can depend on for anything good.

H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency,
less freedom and reduced liberty.

Yeah; I have long had a low opinion of McCain,
but I voted for him against oboy.

It boggles the mind
that anyone coud think that Congress had the authority
to make all American citizens buy health insurance.

That concept, in effect, repudiates the Constitution,
specificly the 9th and 10th Amendments; naked usurpation.

[T]here are lots of markets—especially if defined broadly enough—that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile—now partially government-owned—because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business....

H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency,
less freedom and reduced liberty.

Yeah; I have long had a low opinion of McCain,
but I voted for him against oboy.

It boggles the mind
that anyone coud think that Congress had the authority
to make all American citizens buy health insurance.

That concept, in effect, repudiates the Constitution,
specificly the 9th and 10th Amendments; naked usurpation.

Interestingly, Judge Vinson didn't base his opinion primarily on 9A and 10A - unless they're indirectly referred to and I missed it:

Quote:

[T]here are lots of markets—especially if defined broadly enough—that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile—now partially government-owned—because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business....

Fido, Obama democrats talk of leveling the playing field and making thing equal for everyone. They lie.
They are actually attempting to make the dumbmasses equally miserable while they increase their wealth and power at our expense.

It is the judge's argument that is absurd.

Forcing people to buy broccoli is not the same thing as health coverage.

The judge is aware that there is NO
jurisdictional predicate.

The judge is aware that there is NO
jurisdictional predicate.

You are perfectly incorrect. What more, the first bill which mandated that citizens buy items - whether they like it or not - was signed by George Washington himself. The Militia act of 1792.

Federal mandates have been around forever and the vast majority of legal scholars recognize this. You're simply talking out your ass here.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying owning a gun isn't healthy David?