States must challenge health care law

During the six hours of television airtime consumed in 2008 by the four presidential and vice-presidential debates, there was virtually no discussion of the “Constitution” by the four candidates.  In fact, according to my calculations at the time, the word “Constitution” was uttered only once during the entire series.  In just the past week since the House of Representatives passed the massive health care legislation at the behest of the Obama Administration, the airwaves have been flooded with references to and extensive debates about the constitutionality of the measure which is now federal law.

Democrats in the Congress and in the administration assert confidently that the new law’s provisions will pass constitutional muster in the courts.  However, attorneys general in more than a dozen states, along with various public-interest legal foundations, already have filed federal suits challenging the law. While it obviously is far too early to predict with any degree of confidence how the courts eventually will rule on these challenges, the fact that the Constitution is front and center in the current debate, should be welcome news to anyone concerned with the rampant growth of government power in recent years.

More often than not when a new federal law or regulation mandates behavior or taxation, the debate focuses not on the constitutional propriety of such mandates, but their cost.  Certainly cost is important; particularly when – as with the  majority of federal programs – the government does not fund the mandates. The new health care law, with its nearly $1 trillion price tag, has individual states deeply concerned about how to pay for it.  Georgia’s Governor Sonny Perdue, for example, worries how the Peach State will fund what he estimates will be an additional billion dollars of Medicaid spending each year.  Private companies, which will be subject to numerous mandates by virtue of the law, face daunting fiscal challenges as well.  Caterpillar, Inc., the world’s largest manufacturer of construction equipment, predicts it will have to spend some $100 million to meet the law’s requirements.

As difficult as will be the challenge to states and companies to meet the dollar mandates of the health care law, any legal challenge based on cost alone would be doomed to certain failure.  Federal courts have for decades tossed out virtually every challenge to federal programs based on their cost.  That history alone should make a state attorney general contemplating a legal challenge to the health care law think twice.  Making the equation bleaker still is the fact that since the 1930s, only a handful of substantive challenges to federal mandates have been successful.

Why then already have well over one dozen state attorneys general filed suit challenging the health care law?  Obviously each is keenly aware of the at-best modest likelihood of success; and each of their governors certainly has reminded them that their state coffers can ill afford the cost of pointless litigation.

What takes these challenges out of the realm of “jousting at windmills” and breathes life into them, is the fact that this new federal law forces actions never before mandated by Washington.  For example, the law will require individual citizens to purchase health insurance whether they want to or not; and will levy a tax penalty on them if they refuse.  It is this “individual mandate” that offers at least a reasonable chance for a successful challenge to the law.

Here in Georgia, Governor Perdue has indicated he will pursue a challenge using lawyers other than the state attorney general, Thurbert Baker, who has refused to lend his office and his name to the project.   Perdue, unlike Baker, correctly understands the importance of such a lawsuit; for if the federal government is permitted to enforce mandates such as those in this new law, then there will be virtually no activity by a state, a citizen, or a business that the feds would not someday be able to regulate.

71 comments Add your comment

Th

March 29th, 2010
6:39 am

I remember back when Georgia passed the predatory lending law so that mortgage brokers and fly-by-night remodelers peddling subprime loans had to clean up their act. Remember how the feds came in and said we had to change our laws because federal law trumped our law? Remember how our Republican leaders all stood up to the feds and filed suit to stop them? Yea, me neither.

The Supreme Court just restated that a corporation is a person. Federal law mandates that hospitals and doctors have to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Seems only fair that federal law can also mandate that people buy insurance to pay for that care. Why not spend our energy making health care reform work better in Georgia than anywhere else and attracting high paid self-employed here? Unless we have no ideas…

Scout

March 29th, 2010
7:07 am

Let ‘er rip! Time for some old “checks and balances”. The federal government has way too much power and needs a good lesson on states rights …………….. this is the perfect case !

Marine

March 29th, 2010
7:14 am

Th, good idea that’s waisted on the hacks here.

pat

March 29th, 2010
7:27 am

It is a shame that the judicial branch moves so slowly on these matters. This should be in full swing in the courts and a verdict reached before 2011.
There are several questionable tenets of this health bill, but the two most notable ones are the mandates and the 2.10 billion dollar tax on drug companies simply for existing. These companies will either take operations outside the US or will simply raise prices.
Anyhow, you cannot force a behavior simply due to existance. That is clearly unconstitutional.
The constitution is based on what the government can’t do to us, not what we have to do for it.

Bob

March 29th, 2010
7:52 am

Marine and TH, yes it’s a good idea. I think we should also make life insurance and own-ocupation long term disability insurance mandatory. And since we are dealing with healthcare, mandatory annual physicals as well as mandatory nutrition courses for those not meeting standards. Many will disagree with us but look how great the country would be with these needed mandatory plans. While we are at it, lets make it mandatory everyone pays their fair share for all gov services.

zinc

March 29th, 2010
7:58 am

“Why then already have well over one dozen state attorneys general filed suit challenging the health care law?”

Because most of them are Republicans running for higher office. It gets you votes despite the fact that they don’t have a case. It also allows them to rail against the federal government some more…though they loved the federal government when Bush and a Republican Congress were passing unfunded, socialistic programs like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.

As for GA, how about let the Attorney General interpret law and the Governor neuter dogs. Sonny forgets he went to vet school…not law school.

jconservative

March 29th, 2010
7:58 am

If memory serves the bill does not mandate purchasing individual health care until after 2014. So until someone has actually purchased the mandated insurance I do not see where they will have standing in a Federal court.

And I believe the same would apply to the State suits, there must be an injured party before one asks for a remedy.

I really hope the State suits are not just political jousting, but I am beginning to think that they are, in fact, just that.

joan

March 29th, 2010
8:01 am

I would like to know where in “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” the right to live on other people’s money was written in. More and more people think they have some “right” to live on the taxpayer dollar. Why? We need to get some things like this sorted out.

joan

March 29th, 2010
8:09 am

Do you feel the same way about schools, roads, firefighters, police? I mean why can’t I just be charged if my child goes to school and when I call 911. Why do I have to pay for things I don’t use…isn’t this the same thing…to “ensure domestic tranquility”….What is the difference? I think my taxes are too high but honestly, most of my burden seems to be coming from the local and state government and not the feds if you can believe that.

nobama

March 29th, 2010
8:12 am

I set out on a mission to bring down this country and I’m spinning my web……
I did what I told you I would do…………
YOU ARE NOW CIRCLING THE DRAIN, HAVE A NICE BATH….
B. Hussien O

Road Scholar

March 29th, 2010
8:21 am

Bob , isn’t more than 10 states having already filed enough to have the courts rule? Is a lawsuits merits based on how many and who files suit? Does it have a bearing on the outcome based on law, previous rulings, and the Constitution? Besides when they see do-nothing Sonny’s name on the suit, the court may laugh and throw it out! Besides we won’t get a ruling by 2020 the way our courts are backed up!

LibraryJim

March 29th, 2010
8:23 am

The one time I remember the Constitution being brought up in the VP debate, Joe Biden cited the WRONG section/article of the Constitution regarding the duties of the VP in the Senate, and got it totally wrong. Sarah Palin, who brought it up, did not challenge him, and the debate moved on to different topics.

Reading the constitution aloud, on camera, at the beginning of a campaign should be required of all candidates.

nobama

March 29th, 2010
8:31 am

TO: Con White Male,

I support free care. You will pay for their FREE care and like it.

……………………………………….. B. Hussien O. ……………………

Scout

March 29th, 2010
8:32 am

To Conservative White Male:

You sir are not being very helpful and in fact are just the type of person that makes a reasoned debate on this subject so difficult.

This is a very serious issue involving the power of the federal government vs. states rights (10th Amendment/Commerce Claus, etc.).

Please, if you are a true conservative (and not a liberal just baiting this site) please refrain from such rhetoric in the future.

Nicolia Disfagonious

March 29th, 2010
8:37 am

Scout needs to go back and talk with Bookman and the Maddow/ Oberman lickers.

Barck

March 29th, 2010
8:37 am

Since no one really knows what is in the healthcare bill…which I can’t believe since it was so totally transparent, I think you will all be pleased to know that along with the requirement to buy health insurance, it also contains a mandate that all Americans MUST purchase, at their own expense, a Barck and Michelle photograph to hang on their kitchen wall. If you do not…you will be fined. If you do not now have a kitchen…then just let me know and we will buy one for you so you can hang your picture. Please note that there is a price break on the 8×10’s.

Orenthal J. Simpson

March 29th, 2010
8:38 am

i need free healthcare now more than ever.

Orenthal J. Simpson

March 29th, 2010
8:39 am

i need a kitchen……..

Orenthal J. Simpson

March 29th, 2010
8:39 am

Enter your comments here

zeke

March 29th, 2010
8:52 am

Hopefully the Court will rule based on the Constitution and not the liberal bias of the individual Judges! We will immediately see if Sotomayor will leave her personal views out of the debate and the ruling! DOUBT IT! There are many things, entitlements, laws, restictive agencies like the epa that are making laws, not carrying out the laws made by Congress, WHICH IS THE ONLY BODY CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED TO MAKE LAWS! The epa is a rouge agency, making laws, issuing fines and running roughshod over American businesses and citizens! PLEASE SUPREME COURT, UPHOLD THE CONSTITUION, IGNORE THE FAILED IDEA OF PRECEDENT, FOR ONCE RULE ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION, OVERTURN THIS SOCIALIST DISCRIMINATORY FIASCO!

Not Going To Use My Usual Name

March 29th, 2010
8:54 am

Let’s not pretend that it has anything to do with some “brave” folks seeing a Constitutional illegality. If you really think that, Barr, you’re deceived.

This is a partisan challenge. Nothing but politics. And if it gets to the Supreme Court, they may well decide to offer legislation from the bench again and strike down the duly passed and signed law. (These days, they’re as obstructionist as the minority party in Congress).

Honestly, it’s nauseating how many things are simply party votes. Consider Obama’s taking advantage of the recess to make some nomination. Conservatives are horrified that he’d do such a thing–never mind that Dubya made a habit of it.

Look, the idea to fine those who don’t participate in health care came from the ROMNEY plan. Mitt Romney, remember him? He’s supposed to be one of y’all’s frontrunners? Fine those who don’t buy health insurance? His idea. And it’s constitutional, because having to pay for people’s catastrophic health care definitely has an impact on interstate commerce.

I’m not saying the challenge will fail; I’m saying that if it succeeds, it’s simply on partisan lines.

HDB

March 29th, 2010
8:55 am

Scout – THANK YOU for your retort towards CWM; he’s just the type that gives conservatives that demonic look that people despise!!

Here’s my question to you: If, as a conservative, you desire insurance sales across state lines, by mandating the purchase of insurance, doesn’t that open up the possibility of interstate sales…thereby NEGATING the opposition due to the Commerce Clause…for the contract you entered into for health care will be enforced in whatever state you reside??

Nicolia Disfagonious

March 29th, 2010
9:00 am

TO HDB…..

Go hole up with Scout, Maddow and Olberman

Fix-It

March 29th, 2010
9:02 am

Just remember that in theory communism, and socialism should work, but it does not. Sounds kind of like Obozocare…

pat

March 29th, 2010
9:03 am

I think obama has the constitution printed on the WH toilet paper.

Dave

March 29th, 2010
9:03 am

I’m waiting for the gov’t to mandate people buy a GM vehicle whether they need or want one or not to save all those union jobs…. Interstate commerce baby….

HDB

March 29th, 2010
9:04 am

@Nicolia – if that’s the company you’ve placed me in with..I’d be honored!!

Dave

March 29th, 2010
9:06 am

“If you are tired of our nation’s year-long health care debate and you were hoping that the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care bill would settle anything, then Politico has some bad news for you: the real fight is just getting started. Starting today, a coalition of leftist groups will sink millions of dollars into television advertising and astroturf events selling the plan to the American people. But as a Washington Post poll conducted after passage last week shows, the Obama administration and their leftist allies face a steep climb.

The top line numbers are bad but not daunting for the pro-Obamacare forces: 50% of Americans oppose the changes in the new law while 46% support them. But the numbers also show that most Americans believe the new law will cause “the overall health care system in this country” to get worse, “the quality of the health care you receive” to get worse, and “your health insurance coverage” to get worse. The poll also shows that most Americans believe the law will weaken Medicare and that there is “too much government involvement in the nation’s health care system.” And strong majorities of Americans believe Obamacare will increase the federal budget deficit (65%), increase “your health care costs” (55%), and increase “overall costs of health care in this country” (60%). The American people are right on all counts. And if the events of last week are any indication, these beliefs will only harden over time.”

Dave

March 29th, 2010
9:10 am

The CBO did an analysis on this requirement back in 1994 when Hillary Clinton was pushing the same mandate. “According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Eric

March 29th, 2010
9:11 am

Great article! I do hope we finally curb this monstrosity of legislation and the threat to individual rights!

Robert Littel

March 29th, 2010
9:12 am

It is to be expected that the forces of egregious and pernicious wealth accumulation are going to mount whatever campaign they can come up with to mute the miniscule impact that this, much compromised, health plan will have on the insurance monopoly over health care, that has caused so much suffering and death in-order to make the already rich richer. The oligarchy of obscene wealth has marshaled every asset that can be cheaply bought, be it senators, state legislators and governors, right down to the clueless minions whom they have created to work against their own best interests, the Tea-Party idiots, (see “Victoria Jackson/ Fox and Friends” for a prime example) to build a bulwark against the only program that will address health care in a meaningful and effective way, the One Payer Plan, that they are determined will never see the light of day, no matter how many have to suffer and die in the process.

jconservative

March 29th, 2010
9:27 am

joan March 29th, 2010 8:01 am
I would like to know where in “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” the right to live on other people’s money was written in.

Your quote is from the Declaration, not the Constitution, and so has not legal standing by itself.

But to answer your question as to when “the right to live on other people’s money was written in”. As usual it started slowly, this time with the 16th Amendment; “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

And, of course, the Constitution gives to Congress the authority the spend all they money raised.

And then Congress learned that if they gave the voters something “free” from the government, then they were more likely to be re-elected. And it works. See tax cuts, rebate checks, Social Security, Medicare and, well do I really need to go on?

Go back up and read the 16th Am again. Note this phrase “…from whatever source derived…”. That just about has to be the four most powerful words in the Constitution. No matter how you earn it, it can be taxed. And Congress can spend it any way they want.

And since we keep sending the same people to Congress year after year after year, we must, as a country, be happy with what is happening.

Scout

March 29th, 2010
9:45 am

Nicolia Disfagonious :

You are obviously into bigotry instead of reasoned debate. Sad.

DirtyDawg

March 29th, 2010
10:00 am

Don’t even dare to use the ‘write offs’ of Caterpillar and at&t as examples of new costs that corporations will have to ‘endure’. As you well know, with the Medicare Drug bill/give away to the drug companies in 2003, your boy George also ‘gave’ corporations a subsidy of 28 cents on the dollar to help pay for prescription drug insurance. Those corporations have since been ‘writing off’ not only the full dollar they would have spent but the extra 28 cents as well. Instead of a 72 cent deduction they’ve been taking $1.28 all these years. So, indeed, this is closing that ‘loophole’. What they ought to have been doing is charging and fining ‘em for tax-evasion. The other point about this is those write-offs are ‘forecast’ over the next thirty years (at least the at&t one)…why? Just to make ‘em look bigger and to make Obama and the bill look worse is my bet. Oh yeah, that ‘trillion’ dollar cost your talking about is over the next ten years – and, apparently you don’t believe the CBO numbers that, overall, say it’ll same $130 billion compared to the present trajectory of health care costs.

Is the thing perfect? Hell no. Does it need to be improved? Hell yes. But only stupid people engage in this Quixotic, and wasteful, practice of filing suit to stop it…along with those that encourage them to do so.

Bob

March 29th, 2010
10:02 am

The best way to fight this plan is to treat taxes like democrats do, don’t pay them and use the Charles Rangle defense. Oh, those taxes apply to me also, but I wrote them, that is my contribution.

DirtyDawg

March 29th, 2010
10:08 am

Robert Littel said it best. The simplest, and probably the most workable and affordable, thing to have done, and we can still do it, is to open up Medicare to anybody that wants to ‘buy’ into it. Seniors will still receive it as they have been. New participants will pay ‘at cost’ to buy in. The mechanism is already in place – it’ll probably have to be phased in in order to ensure enough medical practitioners – doctors included – are available to handle the demand. Oh yes, and to give the health insurance companies more time to raise there rates on those that haven’t ‘opted out/in’ and to find other work to do/suckers to pray on.

Mr. Holmes

March 29th, 2010
10:14 am

Mr. Barr,

I highly doubt the reason Sonny Perdue–or any other state–wants to sue over the health care bill is that he’s fretting over its constitutionality.

This is about defeating Barack Obama, pure and simple. Funny how so very few GOPers cared about constitutional limits on power when the cowboy was putting his feet up on the Oval Office desk.

Barack

March 29th, 2010
10:27 am

I have never run a business. I have never met a payroll. I have never managed a budget. I have never managed any employees. I have absolutely no military expereince. But fear not…I am qualified to run your country and act as the omnipotent Commander in Chief.

Drifter

March 29th, 2010
10:29 am

I’m with Mr. Holmes on this one. The GOP doesn’t respect the Constitution significantly more than the Democrats do. This is all politically motivated and it won’t accomplish anything. When the government was allowed to rape our paychecks when they established Social Security, they were essentially forcing us to invest in a bad retirement/disability program…extending that to health care is no big leap.

IC Atlanta

March 29th, 2010
10:52 am

George Bush tried to reform social security, but the lefties had a conniption fit and put a stop to it. Sorry moochers, but the bill is unconstitutional. Democrat AG’s won’t sue, because they are on the Obama bandwagon – hook, line and sinker.

I hope some of you Democrat voters lose your jobs and are struggling financially because of the party’s actions. Elections have consequences and I hope you personally feel it since you supported the party and their economic destructive policies.

Jefferson

March 29th, 2010
11:08 am

George Purdue is wasting time and money, it still will cost taxpayers.

Paulo977

March 29th, 2010
11:10 am

I have always known tha BB was an opportunist BUT what I didn’t know till now is that he is either uninformed about the importanace of health care for all for a society or he is just an ELITIST who doesn’t give a damn for the well-being of those who are deprived of a decent life because they just can’t afford health care!!

neo-Carlinist

March 29th, 2010
11:35 am

Scout, yeah it would interesting were it 1982 and I was discussing the “case” in my undergraduate Constitutional Law class. Problem is; it is 2010 and I am never optimistic or interested when lawyers, judges and legal scholars “litigate” on my behalf – because litigation, like any commercial enterprise (say, for example, HEALTH CARE) – is BIG BUSINESS. My guess is the Founding Fathers who practiced law are snickering from the great beyond. They introduce Americans to the concept of the “rule of law”, which all be ensured billable hours for ALL future attorneys. There are no “states rights” and I think the American Civil War proved this. Like any other “authority figure” the Federal government seeks to consolidate and enhance it’s own power. So yeah, the motions/briefs will be filed and Alan Dershowicz, or Jefferey Tubin, or even Ann Coulture will enlighten us with their brillian legal minds. And maybe The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch will throw opinions at each other like so many rotten tomatoes, but at the end of the day, the gub-ment will do what it wants, when it wants. I return to my gabmling metaphor, these “issues” are not the game. Litigation is the game. The politicos and pundits are just setting the line.

David S

March 29th, 2010
11:52 am

The wonderful and heroic congressman Ron Paul has consistently pointed out that there are two key arguments that hold absolutely no water in Washington DC – a moral argument and a constitutional argument. You only need to look at every other lawmaker and his/her votes to see that this statement is true.

Time to restore the Articles of Confederation.

The Cynical White Boy

March 29th, 2010
12:20 pm

How about a new Constitutional Convention?

The heck with this piece-meal stuff like suing over individual Obama-bailouts and entitlements, let’s take a broader approach and take another look at who should get what under the entire Constitution.

Time for a Constitutional Convention.

The Cynical White Boy

March 29th, 2010
12:21 pm

Some things I’d put on the table at a new Constitutional Convention:

Constitutionality of ….

…Death Penalty for rape

…entitlements for non-US citizens

…privilege to vote for non-taxpaying citizens

How’s that for a start?

Scout

March 29th, 2010
1:11 pm

neo-Carlinist :

Good words but sometimes we get lucky with a reasonable ruling (i.e., the recent one on the 2nd Amendment) ………….. one can only hope.

DirtyDawg

March 29th, 2010
1:18 pm

Ironic that I mentioned in an earlier post that any delays in implementation of health care reform would give the insurance companies a chance to raise their rates in order to make as much money as they could, for as long as they could. Well, the news today is that some insurance co lawyers have found something in the ‘fine print’ of the bill that would do just that…having to do with children with pre-existing conditions…seems as if they, ins/cos, can avoid covering some of them until 2014. Just what we knew would happen, if you give them time to ‘adjust’ to the changes, all they’ll do with it is more raping and pillaging…at least until we cut off their pillager.

SkyIsFallingOhMy

March 29th, 2010
1:23 pm

The sky continues to fall on Chicken Little Barr. Oh my!

neo-Carlinist

March 29th, 2010
1:27 pm

Scout, alas, I believe the Heller ruling was a mere pacifier, like the Constitution (has become)itself. namely, ever once in awhile, the three headed monster we call the Federal government will toss us a bone to keep our appetite for freedom at bay. You’re in law enforcement, right? The Second Amendment means nothing if a person’s spouse or domestic partner or whatever files a TRO or files domestic violence charges (not conviction). Like the Cynical White Boy, I’d like to see a new Constitutional Convention, but I think the three headed monster is itself more comfortable playing the shell game established by the first Constitutional Convention.

Tim Geitner

March 29th, 2010
1:33 pm

Hey! What’s the big deal? If you’re a big Dem like me—you don’t have to pay taxes! Charlie Rangel, Tom Daschle are my buddies!

Scout

March 29th, 2010
1:37 pm

neo-Carlinist:

I am retired (after 34 years plus military) but I have always wondered how that law could stick without a conviction. In addition, how is it that everyone convicted of a crime (felony) eventually gets EVERY ONE of their Constitutional rights back except for voting and the 2nd Amendment. I think they should get both back (unless their crime was one of violence) after they have served their sentence and are off probation.

Fix-It

March 29th, 2010
1:38 pm

The whole reason for this take over is that the liberals are all out of your money and need more. If the social security administration had keep their money separate from the “general fund” it would be ok, but some wonderful government works said we will just put it back later, well, it is later…. Rather than own up to their own inability to balance a check book the dimacrats just voted themselves more of your money. Boy they are really a smart bunch… NOT

Barry Obama

March 29th, 2010
1:38 pm

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful Community Organizer! You will do whatever I command! It doesn’t have to be Constitutional if I so command it. I am also known as King, and The Annointed One.

Presbo

March 29th, 2010
2:19 pm

Everyone keeps talking about something called the “Constitution”. What is that?

neo-Carlinist

March 29th, 2010
2:24 pm

actually, the Constitution is the “curtain” to which the previous poster refers. Oh, and “Barry” every President in recent memory has “hid” behind the curtain (both parties)

Yvette

March 29th, 2010
2:27 pm

Here we go again. Complaining, complaining, with little or no merit. We have rights to our own opinion however have a solid foundation at the base. So many times, people opt to take the lazy/easy way and form their opinion on news reports in leiu of performing their own researching. The Fox Channels for example loves to report negative, half truth, and misleads the public whenever it involves our President Obama. No one complained when former President Bush attempted a health reform bill that didn’t pass or how we at war due to the the oil debt that belong to companies that is affiliated with once again our former presidents and a vice president. Now, President Obama is fulling his promises of change. I realize that everyone isn’t going to be happy with all of his decisions and that we aren’t perfect. Then, people are trying to justify their actions of violence based on signing of the Health Reform Law. When in fact, it’s called retaliation of refusal of the acceptance of an AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. For those who committed the act(s) of violence against the politicans, I hope you research the penalty/punishment for each crime committed under federal law. Why federal you may ask; the crime were committed due to there position. As for Bob Barr, when he denied his race, that should have told everyone that he has an identity issue within self that has to be resolved before he can make sound decisions for the people. Just for record, I check other when asked about race identity and a disable veteran. I did my research now do yours. Have a great and bless day.

Presbo

March 29th, 2010
3:45 pm

Yes Yvette you are right. The whole problem is that the president is a black man. I hardly noticed. Thanks for pointing that out. I am surprised you could wrap your little brain around that concept. Way to go Einstein!! There’s the answer folks…the president is black.

Th

March 29th, 2010
4:17 pm

I don’t think Bob was being serious about mandatory life insurance or disability insurance, but we are already covered and don’t need to require people to buy their own. Social Security pays a death benefit to your spouse if you die and survivor benefits to your children. My nephew is attending college paid in part by survivor benefits after my brother-in-law was killed in an accident. Your spouse can also collect your Social Security if it is greater than what they would qualify for. Of course everyone knows there are lots of people on Social Security disability payments. Seems to be the income stream of choice for the tea party activists who are not old enough to be on regular Social Security.

Since your annual physical will now be paid by your insurance company at no cost to you, they may well require you to have one just like dental insurance policies require regular check-ups. So, guess what, Bob? You may well have all those mandatory things after all.

Marine

March 30th, 2010
6:03 am

When will Bob tell us about the Government subsidized health care he enjoys?

David

March 30th, 2010
8:19 am

Funny how the republican attorney generals are using one of the few republican ideas in the bill as the basis for the lawsuits. The universal mandate was first brought into the healthcare debate by Sen John McCain and other republicans in the 90’s as a response to HillaryCare. Mitt Romney even supported the idea in a 2008 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. And NOW it is “unconstitutional”?

mit

March 30th, 2010
10:42 am

Obama got elected in November 2009 running on health care reform. If it was such a bad idea then how did he win? Mandate for buying health insurance was republican’s idea. So now they are crying about it? Lawsuits to challenge health care law all brought by republicans because they are mad it wasn’t them that passed it; or got elected by running their campaigns on it. Bob Barr, didn’t think you were this wooten. Wooten – adj.’cry baby retards that bring up the constitution when it seems like it will help them, yet don’t really care when its them trying to make laws like the Patriot Act’

ramblwrk68

March 30th, 2010
12:03 pm

Found this in a NYT comment stream today. Credit: Christopher Marengo
Pleasantville, NY:

“I suggest you review Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in 1824, which is still the law of the land today: He said, in effect, that the Federal government has no authority to make laws in the area of public health…that is left to the states. The case law since 1824 reaffirms this law.
You also might want to look the liberal’s favorite decision, Roe v. Wade, when Justice Blackmun stated that (I’m paraphrasing) that the right exists for people not to purchase health care insurance.”

No More Progressives!

March 30th, 2010
12:55 pm

Robert Littel

March 29th, 2010
9:12 am
“It is to be expected that the forces of egregious and pernicious wealth accumulation are going to mount whatever campaign they can…………”

Pernicious? My Gawd………………….

Perfezor Pinko has spoken!!!!!!!

ugaaccountant

March 30th, 2010
2:55 pm

ramblwrk68

March 30th, 2010
12:03 pm
Found this in a NYT comment stream today. Credit: Christopher Marengo
Pleasantville, NY:

“I suggest you review Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in 1824, which is still the law of the land today: He said, in effect, that the Federal government has no authority to make laws in the area of public health…that is left to the states. The case law since 1824 reaffirms this law.
You also might want to look the liberal’s favorite decision, Roe v. Wade, when Justice Blackmun stated that (I’m paraphrasing) that the right exists for people not to purchase health care insurance.”

Exactly, this really should end all debate.

Jess

March 30th, 2010
4:26 pm

Meanwhile, Rep. Waxman is calling for congressional hearings related to AT&T and Catipillar’s claim that this bill will cost them $1billion and $150 million respectively because they dared share this info with their shareholders. Both AT&T and Catipillar Have been asked to supply all written and electronic correspondence to congress.

Warning your shareholders of a large hit to their bottom line is now apparently a problem for our government. And I thought keeping shareholders informed was a good thing. More change we can believe in.

No More Progressives!

March 30th, 2010
4:53 pm

Jess

March 30th, 2010
4:26 pm
Meanwhile, Rep. Waxman is calling for congressional hearings related to AT&T and Catipillar’s claim that this bill will cost them $1billion and $150 million respectively because they dared share this info with their shareholders. Both AT&T and Catipillar Have been asked to supply all written and electronic correspondence to congress.

Warning your shareholders of a large hit to their bottom line is now apparently a problem for our government. And I thought keeping shareholders informed was a good thing. More change we can believe in.

In Little Barry Soetoro’s world, all information is to pass through the Federal Imperial Government. Soon, you’ll be stopped in the street by a guy in sunglasses with a dark suit that doesn’t fit, who demands: “Let me see your papers.”

AT&T and Cat are responsible to their shareholders; soon there will be only one share: Little Barry’s.

Jess

March 30th, 2010
5:30 pm

No More…….

Obama has gotten a copy of Chavez’s play book I’m afraid.

TW

March 30th, 2010
7:34 pm

You bigots were a lot more fun when you had the stones to use the N-word.

And you were a lot more credible before you spent eight years in ‘w’s rectum.

Please, either grow a pair or create a defensible argument worthy of the educated world.

No More Progressives!

March 30th, 2010
9:02 pm

TW

March 30th, 2010
7:34 pm
You bigots were a lot more fun when you had the stones to use the N-word.

And you were a lot more credible before you spent eight years in ‘w’s rectum.

Please, either grow a pair or create a defensible argument worthy of the educated world.

And I guess only you are the arbiter of the educated word, correct?

Such a classy and eloquent remark from such a brilliant writer of deathless prose you are.

Angela the life insurance guru

April 12th, 2010
6:15 pm

thanks for the information! I’m always interested in the healthcare debate. I’ll bookmark this site.