Pelosi stands gleeful in front of a founder's portrait; claiming to be "answering the call of history." But while forcing policy, key Constitutional questions remain.
Video: Franklin Constitutional intent
The article speaks of deferring trillions in new costs of health care; while Government burdens one group, to supply another; further placing new restrictions on an already heavily restricted Insurance Industry.
One cause & effect: 1,600 U.S. Insurance Companies; each with a profit of only 2%; will no longer act as tax-payers, after a 'mass debt Gov' bankrupts them.
This is far from settled... The true cost has yet to be determined, and at present, is grossly inaccurate... Thus, reasonable solutions are kept from light...
Sound Conservative bills cost a Mere $61 Billion, cut $68 Billion from Deficit; and reduce premiums up to ten percent —and more: GOP [PDF]
Contending that much of what is broken, can be removed...
(Third year) Democrat Majority, craftily kept all GOP proposals off record; while Conservatives represent a clear majority on health care issues.
It is not logical to minimize an opponent, as if they hadn't presented a plan.
The details of Democrat's plan is without insured's support, & hushed by the ObamaMedia; as Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director CBO reveals: [PDF]
Sen. Gregg (Senate Budget Committee) gives updated estimate of House Bill, and Pulls Back the Curtain on Majority’s Intent to Grow Government by $3 Trillion...
Any direct tax, should be apportioned according to population as required by Article I section 2, clause 3... In constitutional form, the federal government does not have the power to abrogate state’s purchase choice any more than states have the power to impose them on the rest of the U.S... And, I do not see how choosing NOT to buy something can, in effect, be regarded as commerce. In my view, unconstitutional mandates, will not fly.
Unconstitutionality of a graduated income tax:
"Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.
It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the Constitution which followed the late civil war had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time." Justice Stephen J. Field, Separate opinion in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
-re: Abraham Lincoln appointed Supreme Court justices
-VIDEO: Dems authorize Iraq war using Clinton's act of 1998: VIEW.
-VIDEO: Bush’s (17) formal warnings about Freddie & Fannie (2004-2008) and demands to reign them in: Rejected! (and still rejected.)
-VIDEO: Bush’s numerous attempts to privatize Social Security: Rejected! (and still rejected)
-VIDEO: Gangster can’t guarantee what will be slipped in the bill...
To do so, would violate: ethics??