Comments on: Is a Mandate Constitutional?

By: Had Enough

Had Enough — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:12:54 +0000

You can always count on Jeff Sessions to pick a bill apart to expose the blatant lies.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=193770542686

“Democrats sold the American people on health care reform as a wonder drug that would lower premiums for all, insure every American, and reduce the deficit,” Sessions said. “Unfortunately, the actual legislation in the Senate doesn’t do that. Instead, it costs $2.5 trillion, increases premiums for many families, leaves 24 million Americans uninsured, raises taxes, and cuts Medicare. The truth is, the legislation simply doesn’t do what its supporters claim. It even fails the standards set by the same people who wrote it.”

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:49:50 +0000

What I’d like to know is, when did “regulate” go from “to make regular” to “to have absolute, unlimited power over anything even remotely related.”

By: James Young

James Young — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:30:07 +0000

The only good thing about this is if a lot of people read it. She’s right on the state of Commerce clause jurisprudence, and the more people who become aware of that, the closer we’ll be to getting back to constitutional limitations.

Unfortunately, I know of no case in which hospitals have challenged the treatment mandate — it probably is a carrot and stick type thing: no treatment of indigents; no federal funds — probably out of fear of being perceived as “mean.”