Uh, that would be a traitorous action...but I only came in here to point out that there's no legal precedent for this...what a lame claim all together. More RW nutbaggery...

And THE SUPREAMS ...set precedent aaaaand guess who has the 5-4 there at the moment

Say what about the civil rights act -

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally passed in the House by 290-130. Cloture was achieved in the Senate by a vote of 71-29, and the Senate then passed its version of the legislation 73-27. The House took up the Senate bill and passed it 289-126. Substantial majorities of both parties supported the legislation at every stage.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/health_care_isnt_like_civil_ri.html


I REPEAT - If the bill was a GOOD BILL, a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT along with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS wouldn' have ALL THIS EFFORT AND CIRCUMVERSION OF PROCESS FOR IT TO PASS.

Okay Mr. Scholarly person, what Constitutional article(s) forbids or even implies that the HC bill is un-Constitutional?

Please quote the exact article(s)...Or do I have to await your next viewing of Glenn Beck's shillshow to get an answer?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


As I have stated before , the 'constitution' is pretty vague and very easy for LAWYERS and POLITICIANS to interpret in whichever ways they wish,,,,,,,It will be an issue for LAW PROFESSIONALS to debate and I am sure they will

I think its covered as commerce because healthcare costs are impacting the nation. OThers dont think it is covered because those great men, two hundred years ago, didnt think to mention it SPECIFICALLY....... in the end, I wager, that this time and effort would not have been made for this bill if the actual PROFESSIONALS AND EXPERTS hadnt already made sure it passed constitutional standards,,, that would be about as likely as a constitutional lawyer running for President without having proof that he qualified,,,

I think the SUPREAMS were this will SURELY end up will side with the 10th amendment on this... Interstate Commerce cand not trump the Whole constitution

it isnt TRUMPING the document when it is INCLUDED In the document. It has been used before in on issues of civil rights and child sex offenders(having to register,,is not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the constitution but it is a federal regulation none the less). It has and will be used, because the fathers couldnt have imagined ALL the situations which may arise in their future. I am glad there is a clause that doesnt affect only those issues significant to the founding fathers but issues that are current as well. We will see how well the clause is argued in this case although I suspect it is already a mute issue.

might be mute anyway Now on DRUDGE
FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....

No Reconciliation no bill...God Love Scott Brown

Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now.

Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures."

Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text."

If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits.

On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess.

There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/

Th New England Journal of Medicine conducted a survey that found that 30% of all doctors in America will retire if this health car bill pass. We will lose a third of all our doctors. I wonder what that will do to the price and availability of health care

from this i can tell. a rush Limbaugh listener.

The Dems don't care about the people. All they want is to be part of "historic" legislation.

You have got to be kidding me if you think this is a legitamate bill.

Why pass something that they allready know needs to be ammended?

With all the back room deals that went on to get the bill this far, and new ones that are in the works now to make a final push for this.

With such "HISTORIC" legislation wouldn't you want it to be the best it can?

that's being kind of cold hearted don't you think. most of those poor fought to make our country free. so now you republicans want war, but to much of a coward to fight in them. as i recall. i use to be republicans while in army. but i seen how republicans hide behind there mommas. when comes time to fight.

Not to mention the interview Pelosi gave to the national media saying she realizes a lot of people will get voted out of office for voting for this bill. but it's a sacrafice that needs to me made...........

If that isn't saying that we know what the American people want and were doing the exact opposite I dont know what is.

the bill is lame. it does not go far enough.
personally i think we need radical change
and the sooner the better to make health care
affordable and available to everyone regardless
of their income level of if they have cancer,
diabetes, a virus or broken leg.

the whole system we have currently is bloated
and extremely unfair. the politicians get
excellent care while others get letters denying
them coverage when they are ill and fighting
with them and their doctors over care.

it is egregious and this is why it is getting
the ax. but they should go a step further and
really SCRAP the whole system with the goal of
making the end result the highest quality and
most cost effective system in the world bar none.

this means getting rid of the insurers all
together because they add nothing of value and
just inefficiently suck trillions out of our
collective pockets. they are a useless middleman
a tax on all of us and one which we cannot afford
and the sooner we chuck them the faster we will
save money...and tossing them out on their ears
will not affect our medical care in the slightest
so, once we slash the fat waste then we can improve
our care and we will really be getting somewhere.
but these half measures really only drag the pain
out.

in treating cancer it is best to operate quickly
and remove the whole problem. eradicate it
immediately and start the healing process. if you
nibble cautiously around the edges then there will
only be more surgery and pain down the line and
the patient will remain at higher risk.

and our health care system has cancer - let's
bite the bullet and excise the nastiness and get
a system which works for us once again.

Not happening.

Wishful thinking, just liked the birthers and tea baggers have. They use hate and fear and many many lies to try to incite anger and resentment to try to get what evil they want to happen.

It ain't happening.

From someone who calls people teabaggers, isn't saying much.