Sen. Lautenberg Declines To Say Where Congress Gets Constitutional Authority To Mandate Health Insurance
Monday, December 28, 2009

Sen. McCaskill Doesn’t Say Where Congress Gets Power To Mandate Health Insurance, But Cites Auto
Insurance At State Level
“Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and
mandating insurance. In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance, and I can assure
everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”

It shouldn't be left up to the Supreme Court to determine whether a mandate passed by Congerss is infringing
upon americans rights.

This was shown not to be fail proof in 1798 with the
Seditions Act
Which Caused Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to introduce the Kentucky  and Virginia Resolutions
"
Whreas it was resolved, that the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to
maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every
aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all
measures warranted by the former. ..".
Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798




Sen. Brown: Constitution Gives Congress Power to Mandate Health Insurance In ‘Same Place’ As Medicare
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The same part of the Constitution that allows us to have Medicare. When I hear people that think this is a
constitutional issue, my first question to them is, ‘Do you want to repeal Medicare?’ And some people, politically,
are so extreme in this country that they want to repeal Medicare, and I think they’re dead wrong.”

Actually, It is not extreme to suggest repeal Medicare. The government is not to be intertwined in the affairs of
the private sector. Provisions for Health Care through a State or Federal Run System is nothing less then this.
Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter:
"The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest & best, that the states are independent as to
everything within themselves, & united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general
government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all
other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are
left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple
organization, & a very unexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants"


Sen. Sanders: Constitutional Authority for Congress’ Health Insurance Mandate ‘Probably’ Same As Medicare
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sanders, a self-described socialist, said: “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes
Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs
that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.”  

Sanders also did not specify which constitutional provision to which he was referring, and did not answer if there
was a limit to Congress’


Sen. Feinstein 'Assumes' Commerce Clause (Art I Section 8 Clause 3) Gives Congress Unlimited Authority to
Mandate Health Insurance
Wednesday, December 23, 2009

And we all know about ASS-U-ME ASSUME MAKES An ASS OUT OF YOU AND ME.

Andrew Jackson more often favored the power of the states. In a series of Commerce Clause cases exemplified
by Mayor of the
City of New York v. Miln (1837), wherein the challenged New York statute required masters of
incoming ships to report information on all passengers they brought into the country, i.e. age, health, last legal
residence, etc. The question before the Taney court was whether or not the state statute undercut Congress's
authority to regulate commerce; or was it a police measure, as New York claimed, fully within the authority of the
state. Taney and his colleagues sought to devise a more nuanced means of accommodating competing federal
and state claims of regulatory power.
The Court ruled in favor of New York.

In a more recent case, Chief Justice Rehnquist propounded a doctrine which was to obtain majority approval in
League of Cities. In that opinion, he said for the Court: "
[T]here are attributes of sovereignty attaching to
every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an
affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it
from exercising the authority in that manner
."

Expanding upon the Supreme Courts anti-commandeering rule, the Court in
Printz v. United States established
"categorically" the rule that "[t]he Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a
federal regulatory program."

More importantly, in the Printz case, the Court relied on the "
structural Constitution" to demonstrate that the
Constitution of 1787 had not taken from the States
"a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," 521 U.S. at
919
(quoting THE FEDERALIST, No. 39 (Madison). that it had, in fact and theory, retained a system of
"dual sovereignty
"

When individuals not aware of the Manuscripts of the authors of the Constitution and distort its text. they are
only swearing an oath to protect the constitution ceremonially.
How can they protect the Constitution without following the guidelines of the authors of it?

Why shouldn't they be held criminally accountable for perverting, and subverting the Constitution, which has
ultimately been the causeation of a distorted, 'bastardized form of an illegitimate government'?


Alaska Senator Begich Doesn’t Say Where Congress Gets Authority to Mandate Purchase of Health Insurance
Begich said: “It think it’s just more stall tactics by the Republicans on the issue of health care, providing health
care for millions of Americans. It’s a shame that they use these procedures to continue to delay the process.”
NOTE To Mr Begich: I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! And, I Have Never Beeen A REPUBLICAN!!!


I can and have provided evidence some Republicans as well as Democrats are subvert'ers of  the Constituiton.



Sen. Enzi: It's ‘Absolutely Not’ Morally Right to Take Tax Money from Pro-Life Americans and Give it to
Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion
Friday, December 11, 2009

It is not only Imorally Wrong, it is a infringes on the rights of American Citizens protected under Amendment I
Whereas "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;"
It also infringes upon the rights of American citizens protected by Amendments V,  IX, XIV  and States Sovereign
Rights protected by Amendment X.

Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-
Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion,
Contribute Now