these people believe we live in a post Constitution world. Remember Tim Geitners reaction when he was ask by Michelle Bachman where in the Constitution he found the Authority to implement intrusive fiscal policies. He asked what's the constitution have to do with it. A lot of what Obama's doing right now flys in the face of the Constitution. The people must keep it alive. When it dies so does our freedoms and privacy.
Sounds like old Mattpee there can only cite the stickwikipedia in the first place.
His reference is in regard to laws made for congress to do its job only, and congress has gone way overboard for years and years. The most frightening of these being
The Patriot Act. Read the thing, it's durn scary.
OR read how specific the Constitution is with regard to Warrants and how the Judicial System has twisted that all around.
@pbfuddle what someone read this law , wow thats more than our Rep. did ..I read it i would like to find the guy who thought up this law ,and shove it up his ass.Plus hit Bush or Skippy Bush whatever you want to call him , over the head with a hammer .for signing it ..
this is why congress is reading the constitution now so that they know exactly what the constitution allows and doesn't allow them to do and by the way the 1st goal of the new congress is to repeal obamacare and cut government spending
All of you people are idiots who made comments. There's a little clause in the Constitution that states, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." And that then coincides with the Commerce Clause. You people are fools.
@mattprov6294 the commerce clause refers to trade and carriage of merchandise. Insurance is an economic inactivity. Regulate is not to make rules but to make sure a commerce stays regular. The very same policy the liberals use to deny insurers the right to sell across state lines is being used to justify a federal mandate. If dems really cared for competition they would let insurance companies do this. Nice try though.
"1). Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause"
That was the first part of the judges ruling knocking the wind out of Obama and Pelosi's commie care - whoops who's the fool now?
@PissedFechtmeister Incorrect. You don't have the right to own health insurance. This is not outlined in the Constitution. And as far as owning health insurance goes, you own it when you purchase it YOURSELF, not when others buy it for you. You Libtards need to realize this.
@zekal10 The Constitution does not contain an all inclusive list of rights. See the 10th Amendment. As I said no one has the right to force other people to buy them insurance. I'm not a "libtard", I'm an anarchist. Your knee-jerk reaction to attack people that you disagree with on a rather minor point indicates that you're some kind of sociopath. Probably of the Christian neocon variety.
@PissedFechtmeister I don't care what you are, libtard. Take time to read the Constitution instead of allowing CNN and MSNBC to tell you what they think you should believe in .
@mattprov6294 The commerce clause applies to interstate commerce. Health insurance is not traded across state lines therefore it is intrastate commerce and not covered under the commerce clause. Not only that but to use the commerce clause in such a manner would mean completely ignoring original intent. The commerce clause was designed to prevent things such as trade embargoes between states. Nice try Obamanite
What seems like an incredulous reaction from pelosi is actually a coverup for never reading the Constitution and thus, not knowing the answer. She just assumed she has the right! What a perverted arrogant bitch... It's Hitler in a skirt!.
Yes, exactly where in the US Constitution, Article 1, does the Congress derive authority to order us to buy anything? Congress can provide us with something and tax us relevantly, but to tell us to go to a health insurance provider and buy insurance, no, I don't see it in the US Constitution.
Another blithering imbecile. She also said health care was a right! Well no it's not. For it to be a right, it would appear in the "Bill of Rights." That would mean Congress would have needed a supermajority to pass this as an amendment to the Constitution. They had to bribe their own party Congressmen to barely squeak out a simple majority to pass that POS bill that nobody read.
"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." Alexander Hamilton, Aug 28, 1794
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
@kubush Oh, here comes the grammar troll, always the last pathetic gasp of someone whose lost the substance argument, and must shift to language instead, a completely different standard than the one under discussion.
And what is the legal definition of "retroactive," I'm curious?
That's not a grammar problem, its context. Retroactive means to affect after the fact. So unless you mean that it applies to the govt in the past, I think it matters.
Besides its not like being required to have insurance is a new freaking concept, what the hell happens when you dont have car insurance and your driving your car? You get citation or put in jail, because by not having the insurance the repairs, expenses will not be taken care off for neither yourself or you victims, plus the property damage.
Forced to pay a tax penalty if you dont have health insurance is the same thing. Because you get hurt govt will be paying for your ER care, so grow up.
Don't want to buy Auto insurance? Don't drive your car. Don't want to buy Health insurance? Don't breathe. Small difference there. This mandate is unprecedented
Right, because u can really store your health in your garage. A mandate is the only way we could ban pre-existing condition denial and make sure the majority of americans are covered.
@kubush "Only" is a too-strong word, and the out-er of every ideologue. And "coverage"? Coverage that they don't actually need and won't even use? The uninsured, like myself, could easily afford catastrophic/high-premium coverage if the laws weren't written in such a industry buddy-buddy way that we can't do so. And likewise, due to the costs of an unhealthy population, not personal choice.
Unless you are "well off" you won't afford or will be denied "catastrophic" coverage. This isn't speculation. People lose their homes and go bankrupt in situations like this. This is what is happening to americans every day. This is the status quo.
@kubush SO WHAT! Those are unique circumstances, and could easily be resolved by regulating a high risk pool. Likewise, it's no contradiction of the fact that catastrophic coverage is wholly possible but denied BY LAW for the sake of the industry, forcing people to buy coverage they don't even need. High premium, catastrophic coverage would work great---I'd buy it!---but the dems won't let me.
And who would pay for this "high risk pool"? And if that was an option, NO ONE would buy insurance until they got sick. Now THAT would be a financial disaster.
@kubush No, they would absolutely be able to afford it, because the pool would be large and premiums would discourage abuse/overuse. But this is all distraction from my main point, which is that you still haven't established the constitutional authority of the government to require an individual citizen to buy some arbitrary good they can't even afford.
The Bill is written so that those that CAN afford it are mandated to buy it. So you are wrong on that point. And I already told you, the Commerce Clause is what empowers them to do it.
And if this pool that you refer to would be affordable, then how would you stop everyone from dropping their insurance and only buying into this high risk pool when they get sick?
@kubush Affordability is absolutely beside the point, even despite the fact that they (I) would be forced to pay for coverage they don't even need with unsufficient subsidies---and subsidies paid for by whom, I wonder? I don't care if the government forced me to buy quarter popcorn, it still would not be constitutionally justifiable.
@kubush Sorry pal, but those taxes got nixed because the unions who contribute most to the dems didn't like it. Funny, they can't even relent from their own excessive, parasitic coverage so the rest of the working class can simply have the insurance they need. Goes to show who they represent: themselves.
You still haven't explained your constitutional reasoning.
You're wrong, again. That tax is still in the bill.
You haven't answer my question about your "high risk pool."
And I have explained my reasoning as to the constitutionality of the individual mandate: Congress has the power to require the individual mandate under the commerce clause. Congress can regulate economic activities that have a cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce.
@kubush No, now you're just repeating claims I've already contradicted. Specifically, where in the commerce clause or any other clause does the constitution allow the government to require citizens to buy some stand alone good, despite other clauses proscribing such powers? The phrase "a cumulative economic effect" is so broad and vague you could use it to justify anything, as you are doing now.
@kubush Okay, you're either just being droll or your just another liberal parrot:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
You haven't contradicted anything. All you have done is offer me your opinions and mischaracterizations (and some straight out falsehoods). I'm still waiting for your answer on the "high risk pool" you so passionately espoused but now are strangely silent about.
@kubush I've already told you such a pool is perfectly possible, but current law doesn't allow it, just to favor the industry. Where are my "falsehoods" and "mischaracterizations"? List them. For the love of God, have the honor to defend your views, instead of acting like a child armed with liberal talking point hearsay and rote assumptions of unlimited federal power (funny how you libs are against this only when it favors some other ideology).
@kubush WOW, just WOW. Not with a bang, but a whimper. The argument is about constitutionality and you're trying to evade a line of reasoning you obviously can't defend and don't even understand.
I gave you the answer and you admit that it could justify almost anything....well, there you go. The Commerce Clause gave the govt a lot of power and it does justify an individual mandate, if you don't buy it thats fine but dont accuse me of not giving u an answer.
And for the 5th time you evade you 'high risk pool' idea because you know you can't defend it.
@kubush "I gave you the answer and you admit that it could justify almost anything..."
The self-consciousness of this statement basically acknowledges you understand its own inconsistency: you're admitting the contradiction, then attempting (rather pathetically) to use it as evidence against being contradicted.
Fucking morons---you're spent dude. Just quit while you're ahead.
Dude go read the constitution and use a dictionary to get the definition for the big words. Its in the first paragraph, then again in article 1 section 8, and indirectly in the declaration of independence.
As for making everyone get insurance, even if you dont want it. Then if I dont own a car then I dont have to pay income taxes since I dont use the roads and bridges?
I swear no one wants to pay for anything anymore in this country, fuking pathetic.
@shadowwbn Pay? For an obese/smoker/druggee/corporate welfare bill that dumps the burden on the most vulnerable, punishes the healthy, and rewards the unhealthy? Hmmm... sad day. I have no idea who is in charge of the party I spent my life trying to better. But if that's the best you've got, I think the people will be vindicated when they vote the louses out, and I hope to help them do so.
"We could try that (mandates) to solve homelessness by requiring that everyone buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is because they don't have the money."
Except this law mandates THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT to buy it. Those who can't get subsidies. Those who are in poverty already get free insurance through medicare.
And its not the same as a house because if you dont have a house, the tax payer isnt footed with the bill of you not having one, as opposed to uninsured getting in an accident or getting ill and sticking the tax payer with the bill.
@kubush Not true. This bill forces the healthy and the young--currently at 30-50% unemployment--to pay for coverage they won't ever need, solely to pay down the costs of an unhealthy population. You can't honestly support the obesity/smoker/druggee-welfare of mandates and call yourself a responsible American. You just can't. I applaud those who are already showing their willingness to challenge such absurd corporate handouts.
Right, because the young and the healthy never need health care....really?
These obese/smoker/drugee ppl as u put it pay their own premiums and not all ppl that get sick or get in accidents are at fault. And these 'healthy' ppl are paying premiums for their own health insurance, not for others.
And if your unemployed u can apply for unemployment/medicare.
You can tell the thought had nevr even crossed her mind until she heard the question. She thinks they won both houses of congress and the presidency so they can do whatever they want.
@bosszeroboss Please Help. Tyranny in the juditial branch of California. Though an act of legislation the California juditial system has admitted to be corrupt and had been granted retro active imunity from prosicution. (see) SBX211
@bosszeroboss PLEASE HELP, TRYANNY in California. The Judicial branch of California through an act of legislature has addmitted two be corrupt and has been granted retro active imunity from prosicution. (SEE) SBX211
This question came from a CONSTITUTIONALISTS, and the guy who asked her this question called in to the Alex Jones show, and said he was a fan, so I doubt ANYTHING Trent Lott says is gonna get support from an AJ fan.
@kubush What are you talking about? You are now in contempt for wasting the court's time. Where does the constitution stipulate the government may require an individual citizen to buy a good purely for the sake of a corporate welfare project that punishes the healthy and the working class? Because the framework of the constitution directly proscribes such provisions by limiting government power to the terms stated explicitly in the constitution.
Your characterization of what this bill does is wrong, it does not 'punish' the healthy or the working class. Congress has the power to enact laws like this due to the Commerce Clause and 70 years of precedent.
@kubush How does the commerce clause do so? To which "precedents" are you referring? Because our criminal justice system is based entirely off the individualist ethic of protection of the innocent. Liberal tax policies work hard to target the individual as well, and yet in their rhetoric they deny individual liberty. Say one thing, do the opposite.
@kubush How does the commerce clause do so? And to which precedents are you referring? Because our system of law is based entirely off the individualist ethic of protection of the innocent. Our entire society is based off of an infrastructure of and for the individual: tax policy, criminal justice, defense...
@kubush That's too vague and applies to far too many cases. If it were even the case, it would require the government to directly regulate behavior, because the only "substantial effect" to speak of is the effect of the obese, smokers, and druggees, who account for the overwhelming majority of health costs in this country.
It's too vague? Well, the supreme court doesnt think it is too vague."the only "substantial effect" to speak of is..." Wrong. The substantial effect is a financial one. So if u get cancer and are uninsured, everyone pays for it.
"who account for the overwhelming majority of health costs" Really? Where is your source for this claim?
STOP promoting the FALSE LEFT RIGHT PARADIEGM!!! Bush called the Constitution, "JUST A GOD D-MN-D PEICE OF PAPER," when he was wanting to get the Patriot Act passed. He even sent ANTHRAX to the people who were questioning the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act. The Senate JUDICIARY head, and the Senate majority leader. Pelosi, like Obama, like HITLERY, like Bush, like Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Colen Powell, they are ALL CRIMINAL SCUM who routinely disreguard the Constitution.
A citation on which part? All of it? How about you do some research!!!
The Bush comment was first referenced at Capitol Hill Blue, but type in the quote, and you can find it all over the web linked to the original document that has been confirmed by numerous people that attended the meeting where he made that statement!
Yes, when you make outrageous claims you usually need a citation. Don't get pissy because someone called you on it. By the way, I looked up CapitAl Hill Blue and the article claimed "aides" heard him say that. No names, no one to confirm the story other than three (he claims) anonymous sources. Fifteen anonymous sources told me he didn't say it (see how easy that is?)
But no, I agree Bush didn't respect the Constitution. I was requesting a citation for the Anthrax bit.
"THE HIDDEN ANTHRAX LETTERS SUSPECT" at whatreallyhappened.
EVERY cop that has looked at this case KNOWS who mailed the Anthrax and why!!!
Dr. Philip Zach was FILMED in the lab where the Anthrax went missing the day AFTER he was FIRED for assaulting one of his co-workers. Ayaad Assad, one of the first Anthrax suspects.
On the Bush quote, many sources have said they heard him say it! That's what makes news, news. CHB is a very credible paper.
Of course her view of Constitutional Constraints is similar to this utterance by Joesph Stalin:
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
what a clueless twerp.
ecompt 6 months ago
Yep, does anyone really believe this:
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
is really going to help the American People?
Old Tail Gunner Joe would spunk his pants if he had had this law to use/abuse.
I did not spend 8 years in 3 subs so that these jokers can use our Constitution for toilet paper.
I would love to see some of these people up on Treason Charges.
Also, seeing as how these folks want to "serve the country," let all of congress draw E-1 pay, or
pbfuddle 7 months ago 2
Its our fault people we elect people more stupid than we are to rule over us...
ikesterman1 7 months ago
It's shit like this that makes me think the people that go on shooting rampages aren't so crazy.
ISpellItThc 7 months ago
That's right because I don't want healh insurance! hahaaa....
cycanine 7 months ago
Darn, I want a waiver.
neffada53 7 months ago
They don't come any dumber than this clueless liberal. A door knob has more brains than this POS.
flyboy7588 9 months ago 8
these people believe we live in a post Constitution world. Remember Tim Geitners reaction when he was ask by Michelle Bachman where in the Constitution he found the Authority to implement intrusive fiscal policies. He asked what's the constitution have to do with it. A lot of what Obama's doing right now flys in the face of the Constitution. The people must keep it alive. When it dies so does our freedoms and privacy.
speakoutbrad 11 months ago 3
Sounds like old Mattpee there can only cite the stickwikipedia in the first place.
His reference is in regard to laws made for congress to do its job only, and congress has gone way overboard for years and years. The most frightening of these being
The Patriot Act. Read the thing, it's durn scary.
OR read how specific the Constitution is with regard to Warrants and how the Judicial System has twisted that all around.
pbfuddle 1 year ago 2
@pbfuddle what someone read this law , wow thats more than our Rep. did ..I read it i would like to find the guy who thought up this law ,and shove it up his ass.Plus hit Bush or Skippy Bush whatever you want to call him , over the head with a hammer .for signing it ..
ikesterman1 7 months ago
this is why congress is reading the constitution now so that they know exactly what the constitution allows and doesn't allow them to do and by the way the 1st goal of the new congress is to repeal obamacare and cut government spending
MrNumber1godsmackfan 1 year ago
Hehe hey Nancy is it serious enough for you today :)
Revy2008 1 year ago 2
All of you people are idiots who made comments. There's a little clause in the Constitution that states, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." And that then coincides with the Commerce Clause. You people are fools.
mattprov6294 1 year ago
@mattprov6294 the commerce clause refers to trade and carriage of merchandise. Insurance is an economic inactivity. Regulate is not to make rules but to make sure a commerce stays regular. The very same policy the liberals use to deny insurers the right to sell across state lines is being used to justify a federal mandate. If dems really cared for competition they would let insurance companies do this. Nice try though.
Chslosers 1 year ago 2
@mattprov6294
"1). Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause"
That was the first part of the judges ruling knocking the wind out of Obama and Pelosi's commie care - whoops who's the fool now?
Revy2008 1 year ago 2
@mattprov6294 Health Insurance is a GOOD, not a RIGHT, you Liberal son of a bitch.
zekal10 1 year ago 2
@zekal10 There's a right to own health insurance. There's no right to force others to give it to you.
PissedFechtmeister 7 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister Incorrect. You don't have the right to own health insurance. This is not outlined in the Constitution. And as far as owning health insurance goes, you own it when you purchase it YOURSELF, not when others buy it for you. You Libtards need to realize this.
zekal10 7 months ago 2
@zekal10 The Constitution does not contain an all inclusive list of rights. See the 10th Amendment. As I said no one has the right to force other people to buy them insurance. I'm not a "libtard", I'm an anarchist. Your knee-jerk reaction to attack people that you disagree with on a rather minor point indicates that you're some kind of sociopath. Probably of the Christian neocon variety.
PissedFechtmeister 7 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister I don't care what you are, libtard. Take time to read the Constitution instead of allowing CNN and MSNBC to tell you what they think you should believe in .
zekal10 6 months ago 3
@zekal10 I've read the Constitution. Did you bother to read the 10th Amendment?
PissedFechtmeister 6 months ago
@mattprov6294 The commerce clause applies to interstate commerce. Health insurance is not traded across state lines therefore it is intrastate commerce and not covered under the commerce clause. Not only that but to use the commerce clause in such a manner would mean completely ignoring original intent. The commerce clause was designed to prevent things such as trade embargoes between states. Nice try Obamanite
ymp5000 11 months ago 7
Yes we are serious Pelosi, get the F' out of here!
knmleaguecity 1 year ago
Can't answer the question. Keep in Mind out of that three branches of government who follows the constitution?
mueygringo 1 year ago
Pelosi is a traitor to the USA and the oath of office she took, she should be packed up and shipped to GITMO while awaiting trial.
NHMntnHIGH 1 year ago
wow!
smarshall811 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah! We're Serious!
What seems like an incredulous reaction from pelosi is actually a coverup for never reading the Constitution and thus, not knowing the answer. She just assumed she has the right! What a perverted arrogant bitch... It's Hitler in a skirt!.
turbomango 1 year ago
Thanks for the video
ZodiacSystem 1 year ago
This bitch should stick to studying for her pap test. Cause she sure doesn't know shit about the constitution
computerpurple 1 year ago
YO Nancy..dont let the door hit you in te ass on the way out of Congress.
Pattycakessmiles 1 year ago
Now they're saying that it isn't a mandate... it's a tax. What a lame excuse. This piece of trash law can't be repealed fast enough.
NAGGERNUTZ 1 year ago
Her response says it all. "Are you serious" that you think I give two f's about the Constitution. Crazy old witch. Thanks for posting this.
gfreakj 1 year ago
could someone please tape a quarter or a dime to this bitch so she would be worth throwing away???
hershelpugh 1 year ago
Yes, exactly where in the US Constitution, Article 1, does the Congress derive authority to order us to buy anything? Congress can provide us with something and tax us relevantly, but to tell us to go to a health insurance provider and buy insurance, no, I don't see it in the US Constitution.
borderraven 1 year ago
i cant stand her she is a pig....she is gone soon byby nancy u looser...
methesponge 1 year ago
Another blithering imbecile. She also said health care was a right! Well no it's not. For it to be a right, it would appear in the "Bill of Rights." That would mean Congress would have needed a supermajority to pass this as an amendment to the Constitution. They had to bribe their own party Congressmen to barely squeak out a simple majority to pass that POS bill that nobody read.
FL8mileshigh1 1 year ago
Long pause...... Then a non-answer in the form of an attack. How typical.
NoGuff 1 year ago
"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." Alexander Hamilton, Aug 28, 1794
TheLibertyJane 1 year ago
Oh yeah we're serious. It will be a very nice day indeed when we're riding her out on a rail and she's thinking, "I guess they were serious!"
TheLibertyJane 1 year ago
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
-14th amendment
Applies retroactively to the federal government.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
How does this apply?
kubush 1 year ago
You are misusing the word "retroactively" here. Just so you know.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Oh, here comes the grammar troll, always the last pathetic gasp of someone whose lost the substance argument, and must shift to language instead, a completely different standard than the one under discussion.
And what is the legal definition of "retroactive," I'm curious?
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
That's not a grammar problem, its context. Retroactive means to affect after the fact. So unless you mean that it applies to the govt in the past, I think it matters.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Wow, you really have nothing.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Yes. Say that to yourself 5 times. Maybe it'll sink in.
kubush 1 year ago
holy shit....this woman...wow....just wow....
illmagnified 1 year ago
Besides its not like being required to have insurance is a new freaking concept, what the hell happens when you dont have car insurance and your driving your car? You get citation or put in jail, because by not having the insurance the repairs, expenses will not be taken care off for neither yourself or you victims, plus the property damage.
Forced to pay a tax penalty if you dont have health insurance is the same thing. Because you get hurt govt will be paying for your ER care, so grow up.
shadowwbn 1 year ago
Don't want to buy Auto insurance? Don't drive your car. Don't want to buy Health insurance? Don't breathe. Small difference there. This mandate is unprecedented
sessions91 1 year ago
Right, because u can really store your health in your garage. A mandate is the only way we could ban pre-existing condition denial and make sure the majority of americans are covered.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush "Only" is a too-strong word, and the out-er of every ideologue. And "coverage"? Coverage that they don't actually need and won't even use? The uninsured, like myself, could easily afford catastrophic/high-premium coverage if the laws weren't written in such a industry buddy-buddy way that we can't do so. And likewise, due to the costs of an unhealthy population, not personal choice.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Unless you are "well off" you won't afford or will be denied "catastrophic" coverage. This isn't speculation. People lose their homes and go bankrupt in situations like this. This is what is happening to americans every day. This is the status quo.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush SO WHAT! Those are unique circumstances, and could easily be resolved by regulating a high risk pool. Likewise, it's no contradiction of the fact that catastrophic coverage is wholly possible but denied BY LAW for the sake of the industry, forcing people to buy coverage they don't even need. High premium, catastrophic coverage would work great---I'd buy it!---but the dems won't let me.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
And who would pay for this "high risk pool"? And if that was an option, NO ONE would buy insurance until they got sick. Now THAT would be a financial disaster.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush No, they would absolutely be able to afford it, because the pool would be large and premiums would discourage abuse/overuse. But this is all distraction from my main point, which is that you still haven't established the constitutional authority of the government to require an individual citizen to buy some arbitrary good they can't even afford.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
"some arbitrary good they can't even afford."
The Bill is written so that those that CAN afford it are mandated to buy it. So you are wrong on that point. And I already told you, the Commerce Clause is what empowers them to do it.
And if this pool that you refer to would be affordable, then how would you stop everyone from dropping their insurance and only buying into this high risk pool when they get sick?
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Affordability is absolutely beside the point, even despite the fact that they (I) would be forced to pay for coverage they don't even need with unsufficient subsidies---and subsidies paid for by whom, I wonder? I don't care if the government forced me to buy quarter popcorn, it still would not be constitutionally justifiable.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Who pays for the subsidies? Taxes levied against inurance companies on "cadillac plans" would help pay for it.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Sorry pal, but those taxes got nixed because the unions who contribute most to the dems didn't like it. Funny, they can't even relent from their own excessive, parasitic coverage so the rest of the working class can simply have the insurance they need. Goes to show who they represent: themselves.
You still haven't explained your constitutional reasoning.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
You're wrong, again. That tax is still in the bill.
You haven't answer my question about your "high risk pool."
And I have explained my reasoning as to the constitutionality of the individual mandate: Congress has the power to require the individual mandate under the commerce clause. Congress can regulate economic activities that have a cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush No, now you're just repeating claims I've already contradicted. Specifically, where in the commerce clause or any other clause does the constitution allow the government to require citizens to buy some stand alone good, despite other clauses proscribing such powers? The phrase "a cumulative economic effect" is so broad and vague you could use it to justify anything, as you are doing now.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
"you could use it to justify anything"
There you go. You answered your own question. It is justified then.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Okay, you're either just being droll or your just another liberal parrot:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-5th amendment
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
I'm sure you meant 14th amendment.
Starting with the ad hominems? Goes to show that you have no leg to stand on.
kubush 1 year ago
You haven't contradicted anything. All you have done is offer me your opinions and mischaracterizations (and some straight out falsehoods). I'm still waiting for your answer on the "high risk pool" you so passionately espoused but now are strangely silent about.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush I've already told you such a pool is perfectly possible, but current law doesn't allow it, just to favor the industry. Where are my "falsehoods" and "mischaracterizations"? List them. For the love of God, have the honor to defend your views, instead of acting like a child armed with liberal talking point hearsay and rote assumptions of unlimited federal power (funny how you libs are against this only when it favors some other ideology).
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
"I've already told you such a pool is perfectly possible..."
Did I ask you whether it was possible? No. Pay attention: If you had a pool like this, how would you stop everyone from dropping their insurance?
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Getting desperate?
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Zero answers. That's what I thought.
Try again.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush WOW, just WOW. Not with a bang, but a whimper. The argument is about constitutionality and you're trying to evade a line of reasoning you obviously can't defend and don't even understand.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
I gave you the answer and you admit that it could justify almost anything....well, there you go. The Commerce Clause gave the govt a lot of power and it does justify an individual mandate, if you don't buy it thats fine but dont accuse me of not giving u an answer.
And for the 5th time you evade you 'high risk pool' idea because you know you can't defend it.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush "I gave you the answer and you admit that it could justify almost anything..."
The self-consciousness of this statement basically acknowledges you understand its own inconsistency: you're admitting the contradiction, then attempting (rather pathetically) to use it as evidence against being contradicted.
Fucking morons---you're spent dude. Just quit while you're ahead.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Wow. That made zero sense. How is justification a contradiction?
kubush 1 year ago
@shadowwbn Simple, the insurance for a car is not for you, it is for the other person who has the accident, there is a difference.
usam1981 5 months ago
@shadowwbn Simple, the insurance for a car is not for you, it is for the other person who has the accident, there is a difference.
usam1981 5 months ago
Dude go read the constitution and use a dictionary to get the definition for the big words. Its in the first paragraph, then again in article 1 section 8, and indirectly in the declaration of independence.
As for making everyone get insurance, even if you dont want it. Then if I dont own a car then I dont have to pay income taxes since I dont use the roads and bridges?
I swear no one wants to pay for anything anymore in this country, fuking pathetic.
shadowwbn 1 year ago
@shadowwbn Pay? For an obese/smoker/druggee/corporate welfare bill that dumps the burden on the most vulnerable, punishes the healthy, and rewards the unhealthy? Hmmm... sad day. I have no idea who is in charge of the party I spent my life trying to better. But if that's the best you've got, I think the people will be vindicated when they vote the louses out, and I hope to help them do so.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Sayeth the Mighty One:
"We could try that (mandates) to solve homelessness by requiring that everyone buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is because they don't have the money."
ayethereztherub 2 years ago
Except this law mandates THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT to buy it. Those who can't get subsidies. Those who are in poverty already get free insurance through medicare.
And its not the same as a house because if you dont have a house, the tax payer isnt footed with the bill of you not having one, as opposed to uninsured getting in an accident or getting ill and sticking the tax payer with the bill.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Not true. This bill forces the healthy and the young--currently at 30-50% unemployment--to pay for coverage they won't ever need, solely to pay down the costs of an unhealthy population. You can't honestly support the obesity/smoker/druggee-welfare of mandates and call yourself a responsible American. You just can't. I applaud those who are already showing their willingness to challenge such absurd corporate handouts.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Right, because the young and the healthy never need health care....really?
These obese/smoker/drugee ppl as u put it pay their own premiums and not all ppl that get sick or get in accidents are at fault. And these 'healthy' ppl are paying premiums for their own health insurance, not for others.
And if your unemployed u can apply for unemployment/medicare.
kubush 1 year ago
she HAS to go
mikie8865 2 years ago 6
are you serious isn't a answer
she is a brainless liberal
StarWarzSuperFan 2 years ago 2
Pelosi... I'm not sure? I've never read the Constitution thingy.
sogairborne 2 years ago
You can tell the thought had nevr even crossed her mind until she heard the question. She thinks they won both houses of congress and the presidency so they can do whatever they want.
GaryVolts 2 years ago
Pelosi's years of experience with event planning and marrying billionaires practically makes her a constitutional scholar!
Nancy Pelosi: proof that the dumbest people in America live in San Francisco.
bosszeroboss 2 years ago 29
@bosszeroboss Best i have heard yet!
fedupwithdoublethink 2 years ago
Thank you, my friend.
bosszeroboss 2 years ago
You bitch about Pelosi but what the hell do you know about the constitutionality of this bill?
kubush 1 year ago
@bosszeroboss
She did more than marry a billionare—all that money comes from war contracts
sanarkhos 1 year ago
@sanarkhos
Awesome!!
And now she's out of a job. One of the shortest stints a speaker has ever had! Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bosszeroboss 1 year ago
@bosszeroboss
Unfortunately the man due to replace her isn't any better.
sanarkhos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bosszeroboss Please Help. Tyranny in the juditial branch of California. Though an act of legislation the California juditial system has admitted to be corrupt and had been granted retro active imunity from prosicution. (see) SBX211
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
@bosszeroboss PLEASE HELP, TRYANNY in California. The Judicial branch of California through an act of legislature has addmitted two be corrupt and has been granted retro active imunity from prosicution. (SEE) SBX211
dcooper0011 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who wants to bet that the guy asking the question supported the Trent Lott's public option property insurance?
Wintermute01001 2 years ago
I'll wager MILLIONS your wrong!!!
This question came from a CONSTITUTIONALISTS, and the guy who asked her this question called in to the Alex Jones show, and said he was a fan, so I doubt ANYTHING Trent Lott says is gonna get support from an AJ fan.
FreeinTX 2 years ago
The guys who asked is an idiot because apparently he hasn't heard of the Commerce clause and 70 years of precedent.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Please do, elucidate... you're defending the constitutionality o the bill, so explain your defense.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
What's the prosecution?
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush What are you talking about? You are now in contempt for wasting the court's time. Where does the constitution stipulate the government may require an individual citizen to buy a good purely for the sake of a corporate welfare project that punishes the healthy and the working class? Because the framework of the constitution directly proscribes such provisions by limiting government power to the terms stated explicitly in the constitution.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Your characterization of what this bill does is wrong, it does not 'punish' the healthy or the working class. Congress has the power to enact laws like this due to the Commerce Clause and 70 years of precedent.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush How does the commerce clause do so? To which "precedents" are you referring? Because our criminal justice system is based entirely off the individualist ethic of protection of the innocent. Liberal tax policies work hard to target the individual as well, and yet in their rhetoric they deny individual liberty. Say one thing, do the opposite.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
@kubush How does the commerce clause do so? And to which precedents are you referring? Because our system of law is based entirely off the individualist ethic of protection of the innocent. Our entire society is based off of an infrastructure of and for the individual: tax policy, criminal justice, defense...
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush That's too vague and applies to far too many cases. If it were even the case, it would require the government to directly regulate behavior, because the only "substantial effect" to speak of is the effect of the obese, smokers, and druggees, who account for the overwhelming majority of health costs in this country.
Try again.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's too vague? Well, the supreme court doesnt think it is too vague."the only "substantial effect" to speak of is..." Wrong. The substantial effect is a financial one. So if u get cancer and are uninsured, everyone pays for it.
"who account for the overwhelming majority of health costs" Really? Where is your source for this claim?
kubush 1 year ago
watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
It's like Prego, it's in there.
FreeinTX 2 years ago
Now start posting this video on facebook and twitter for all to see.And become friends with all the people that see what is going on here.
jongery 2 years ago 2
It has literally never occurred to any true Liberal Democrat that their policies should be in any way constrained by the U.S. Constitution.
SouthFla03 2 years ago 2
I had to hear this myself. Is she serious? IS SHE SERIOUS?!!
4chewnahdoe 2 years ago 7
these liberal demi-Gods all seem to feel they have attained ultimate POWER-
This woman is THE ENEMY -
all liberals must be eliminated ASAP-
rentatrip1 2 years ago 7
rentatrip,
STOP promoting the FALSE LEFT RIGHT PARADIEGM!!! Bush called the Constitution, "JUST A GOD D-MN-D PEICE OF PAPER," when he was wanting to get the Patriot Act passed. He even sent ANTHRAX to the people who were questioning the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act. The Senate JUDICIARY head, and the Senate majority leader. Pelosi, like Obama, like HITLERY, like Bush, like Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Colen Powell, they are ALL CRIMINAL SCUM who routinely disreguard the Constitution.
FreeinTX 2 years ago
FreeinTX, citation needed
darwinkilledgod 2 years ago 2
darwin,
A citation on which part? All of it? How about you do some research!!!
The Bush comment was first referenced at Capitol Hill Blue, but type in the quote, and you can find it all over the web linked to the original document that has been confirmed by numerous people that attended the meeting where he made that statement!
FreeinTX 2 years ago
Yes, when you make outrageous claims you usually need a citation. Don't get pissy because someone called you on it. By the way, I looked up CapitAl Hill Blue and the article claimed "aides" heard him say that. No names, no one to confirm the story other than three (he claims) anonymous sources. Fifteen anonymous sources told me he didn't say it (see how easy that is?)
But no, I agree Bush didn't respect the Constitution. I was requesting a citation for the Anthrax bit.
darwinkilledgod 2 years ago
darwin, on the anthrax case,
"THE HIDDEN ANTHRAX LETTERS SUSPECT" at whatreallyhappened.
EVERY cop that has looked at this case KNOWS who mailed the Anthrax and why!!!
Dr. Philip Zach was FILMED in the lab where the Anthrax went missing the day AFTER he was FIRED for assaulting one of his co-workers. Ayaad Assad, one of the first Anthrax suspects.
On the Bush quote, many sources have said they heard him say it! That's what makes news, news. CHB is a very credible paper.
FreeinTX 2 years ago
So what. Glad he's gone.. Back to topic. Pelosi is a deranged person out of her mind. She thinks the US is a kingdom, not a repuublic.
ORNGCNTY 2 years ago 10
Damn it! Hercules and his healthcare! He never respected the constitution.
kwertallent 2 years ago
The Dictatrix answers: Are you serious?
Of course her view of Constitutional Constraints is similar to this utterance by Joesph Stalin:
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
adamitshelanu 2 years ago 18
Yes, Nancy, he's dead serious. Now answer the blasted question!
chattingcat 2 years ago 11