I would like to know where there is a constitutional precedence for a mandate for any American to buy something; anything! I admit you have to be plum loco to not want to be insured this day and age, but America is supposed to be a free country and it is supposed to be the American’s choice. What mandates is this tyrannical and oppressive administration going to conjure up next? And what about the poorest Americans who cannot afford neither the insurance nor the fine?
Health care reform is important. It has been on the table since Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. But Teddy would spin in his grave if he heard about this. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and all pre-FDR reformers were a different breed than the Franklin himself and those who followed. BF (Before Franklin) reformers got congress to pass statutes regulating how an institution such as a health insurance company does business. Although it is critical any regulation be limited so as not to impose on anyone’s freedom and stymie job creation and minimal unemployment, at least millions, even billions of dollars are not spent on the creation and maintaining of huge bureaucracies that do nothing but run this country deep into debt. AF (After Franklin) reformers such as Obama and company have to create new government agencies that will inevitably bankrupt America and even what little services a limited government must provide will cease to exist.
As Glen Beck said, no matter how liberal or how conservative a stand you take on something like this, look at the people behind it and their ulterior motives. Is the Obama administration intentionally trying to bankrupt America to ultimately replace our democracy with tyranny and oppression?
The first place I would look is who made this ruling, our U.S. Supreme Court. Although I never supported Newt Gingrich and his quest for the presidency, he was (and is) very knowledgeable on how the judicial branch of government works. He made reference to the Dred Scott decision; a pre-Civil War case where a man who owned a slave moved north of the Mason-Dixon line and was allowed to keep Dred in shackled in slavery on the basis that a man is allowed to take all of his property and possessions with him when he relocates and that includes his slave…
Many adversaries of Abraham Lincoln annunciated that slavery is therefore the law of all the land, north and south. Mr. Lincoln made it clear that is only the decision on one controversial case and that nine [old men] do not make the law of the land—we have three branches of government. Ever since the Warren court in 1958,it has been fashionable for presidents to stack the courts with judges who agree with their personal politics. The judicial branch is not a law-making body, it is a law enforcement body and only acts dynamically in the law-making process when the constitutionality of a law or proposed law is questionable and deliberates and comes to a decision. The last constitutional moratorium our Supreme Court ever held was in 1975 concerning Major League Baseball’s reserve clause. Before that, Brown vs. Board of Education. Look at the last two justices appointed to the court, both by Obama, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Keagan, both liberals who would walk on water for Barrack Obama.
We must first balance the budget and then look at BF reform, not AF. The solution must be a private sector solution with the aid of new statutes if necessary and no mandates imposing on the freedom of our citizens who value living in a free country and not impede on how we glorify God who allowed this greatest and freest nation to inhabit the earth.