Federal judge rules Obama care Unconsititutional

CaptainHaplo · 02-02-11, 02:06 AM

Stealth Hunter - as I have said repeatedly, and everyone in favor of government health care seems to want to ignore - is that the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen was legal only because it was a tax/fee on international trade and did not touch domestic trade, which the federal government is supposed to regulate international trade. Trying to say such regulation is equal to a mandate upon all citizens is beyond a mere stretch.

Secondly, the gun mandate as written is for the General Welfare. It states so clearly, in that its purpose is to insure that every citizen has the adequate tools for necessary self defense. Passing a law that insures that every citizen has a chance to protect themselves does as much, if not more, to promote the General Welfare.

The highest number of "victims" of having no health insurance a year in the US? 45,000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5318652.shtml

Now - taking the crimes of murder, rape, assault and robbery, there were 1,319,301 cases where someone was victimized.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Hmmm.. making sure 1.3 Million victims a year are protected promotes the General Welfare a lot more than concentrating on 45,000. Oh, and of course, lets not forget, mandating everyone own a gun will also cost a LOT less than giving everyone health care. Lower cost is good for the General Welfare too....

02-02-11, 02:06 AM	#14
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Stealth Hunter - as I have said repeatedly, and everyone in favor of government health care seems to want to ignore - is that the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen was legal only because it was a tax/fee on international trade and did not touch domestic trade, which the federal government is supposed to regulate international trade. Trying to say such regulation is equal to a mandate upon all citizens is beyond a mere stretch. Secondly, the gun mandate as written is for the General Welfare. It states so clearly, in that its purpose is to insure that every citizen has the adequate tools for necessary self defense. Passing a law that insures that every citizen has a chance to protect themselves does as much, if not more, to promote the General Welfare. The highest number of "victims" of having no health insurance a year in the US? 45,000. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5318652.shtml Now - taking the crimes of murder, rape, assault and robbery, there were 1,319,301 cases where someone was victimized. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Hmmm.. making sure 1.3 Million victims a year are protected promotes the General Welfare a lot more than concentrating on 45,000. Oh, and of course, lets not forget, mandating everyone own a gun will also cost a LOT less than giving everyone health care. Lower cost is good for the General Welfare too.... __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo