View Full Version : Too bad, so sad
Congress clears historic health care bill
The Dems fall in November. Will the Republicans have the cajones to reverse this crap?
Once its signed, it will never be repealed.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 01:04am
They certainly had better. It's going to get ugly, question is how ugly.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2245/44459470874c00d57061o.jpg
The Dems fall in November. Will the Republicans have the cajones to reverse this crap?
yeah this bill is bad news. but think of the positive side... at least you go something to whine about!
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 01:23am
It's funny. I keep hearing the demoncrats say "When we passed Medicare people said it was a step towards socialism" -- in fact, today proves that they were right.
Initially it was a for those who were disabled and the very old, mostly those who paid into the SS system for most of their life.
Welcome to your very unpopular socialized medicine.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5025/1269226772417.jpg
McCollum to file lawsuit against health care bill (http://www.abcactionnews.com/content/news/local/story/McCollum-to-file-lawsuit-against-health-care-bill/7QhmgA087UqkF2fDKWC8eQ.cspx)
ORLANDO, FL -- Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama's health care legislation, Florida's Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.
"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.
"If the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
Ain't over 'til it's over.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62939
Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation to File Immediate Constitutional Challenge If House Dems Try to Pass Health-Care Without Actually Voting on It
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
(CNSNews.com) – Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan Justice Department, said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use an unconstitutional manuever to pass the Senate health care bill without actually having to vote on it.
“I cannot predict if we would win or lose--this is not as simple as some would have you believe--but I want to put the marker down right now and make it clear to members of the House of Representatives who think the quickest way to pass this is to adopt a rule that assumes that they voted on an underlying bill when they didn’t--that is going to be challenged if they do it,” Levin said on his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday evening.
(A draft version of Landmark Legal's likely complaint is available on the organization's Web site (http://landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx).)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Monday that she might attempt to use a procedure -- dubbed “deem and pass” – to pass the measure without actually having lawmakers vote on it.
Essentially, instead of House members casting their votes on the Senate version of the health-care bill, the House would vote on a package of “fixes” made to those parts of the Senate bill to which House members object.
Under the House’s “self-executing rule” provision, if the lawmakers pass a rule that says passing the “fixes” is the same as passing the actual bill -- then the House would magically "deem" the health-care bill to be “passed.” The "rule" itself would be sponsored by the chairman of the House Rules Committtee, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
Levin, who is also a prominent nationally syndicated talk-radio host in addition to heading the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.
“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
House action could come by the end of the week.
~Once its signed, it will never be repealed.~
Professur
3/22/10, 10:14am
Now that's funny. The ad at the bottom of the page when I read it ...
it's not unconstitutional with constructive yeas and nays.
Lawsuits are on the table.
Support your local, if you think this is unconstitutional.
Jay Sekulow, Va. Da, and (not sure who in this state yet, probably N. Deal),
will be receiving donations from here.
This is supreme court material...almost, probably tues.
.
hey lookie it's already a non-issue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001651.html?hpid=topnews).
awww, now somebody not gonna be able to fight heroic constitutional battle! so sad! maybe go outside and play with BB gun instead?
it's not unconstitutional with constructive yeas and nays.
We'll see what the Court has to say.
They better get their wallets out, 'cause there Will be a fight.
that comment addressed the "deem and pass" specifically, which has already been mooted, dude.
http://www.guernsey-press.com/GP_on_line/scene_archive/2000/cow1.jpg
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 11:48am
God-damn-it Minx, its the fucking Zombies!! You can't not fight the Zombies.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9509/1269024639874.png
that comment addressed the "deem and pass" specifically, which has already been mooted, dude.
well just apply it to the main under lying senate bill, and you'll get the message then....maybe.
Of coarse, talk is cheap. Just stay tuned.
The Real show is just about to start.
The issue isn't demonpass, which was a non-issue yesterday, the issue is the gov forcing the people to buy healthcare, and punishing them if they don't.
But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)
In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.
the issue WAS demonpass in the stuff that peel posted where that levin dude thought he was gonna be a hero.
i guess the issue now is that the winner/loser threshold is $88k for a family of four(!) so effectively this is going to be a tax on the middle class. gee, i wonder what the threshold is for one?
hey, don't worry, you'll probably get a subsidy, at my expense. you will benefit from obamacare.
kinda funny, idn't it?
Congress has the power to pass legislation that falls within any of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. There are two obvious sources of congressional power. The first, described in the General Welfare Clause, is the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." The second, laid out in the Commerce Clause, is the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states."
<snip>Although opponents will challenge the individual mandate in court, constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law. To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current Court for staging such a constitutional revolution.
More (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/6/482)
kinda funny, idn't it?
If only. :rolleyes:
And ur....uh....You've never heard of Mark Levin? (http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp)
strangely, the numerous folks i've known named levin were pretty smart. well, guess there's always exceptions.
The issue isn't demonpass, which was a non-issue yesterday, the issue is the gov forcing the people to buy healthcare, and punishing them if they don't.
It's buying insurance, not healthcare.
My gov forces me to buy insurance (http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=40-3104.html) already.
The Dems fall in November. Will the Republicans have the cajones to reverse this crap?
This is what I've always asked.
Once its signed, it will never be repealed.
And this is what it'll be, just like Medicare and Social Security.
Stop acting like your party is superior.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 05:59pm
It's buying insurance, not healthcare.
My gov forces me to buy insurance (http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=40-3104.html) already.Is there a law that forces you drive? -- its protects those you may harm as you utilized the privilege to drive.
Buy a horse, problem solved. Don't comply with obama-care, the IRS can put your butt in jail.
lovely!
Virginia Calls Health Bill Unconstitutional, Files Suit
Attorney General: “At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service”
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, March 22nd, 2010
The State of Virginia has confirmed that it will sue the federal government over the health care reform bill, declaring the legislation unconstitutional and legally conflicting.
The Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, issued a statement last night, giving notification that the State will file suit as soon as the president signs the bill into law, later this week.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103) reports that Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution:
“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli’s statement explained.
“We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce,” the attorney general added.
“If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.”[emphasis mine]
The suit will also raise the notion that the legislation creates a legal conflict between the federal government and Virginia, the only State so far that has passed a law ruling that its residents are not mandated to buy health insurance.
The final reform bill mandates that every American must purchase health insurance before 2014 or pay a fine.
On the evening the House passed the reform 219-212, all five Republican representatives in Virginia voted against the bill (Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Robert J. Wittman, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, and Rep. Frank R. Wolfe), along with two Democrats (Rep. Glenn Nye, and Rep. Rick Boucher).
Rep. Eric Cantor described the bill as a “trillion-dollar overhaul” that would reduce freedom of choice, raise taxes, and increase the national debt.
“It’s the latest part of an agenda that is being forced upon the American people that attempts to seize more control over the economy and our lives,” Cantor said on the House floor before the vote.
Watch Cantor’s speech: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z3yHUDvGI8)
Virginia isn’t the only state looking to the courts on this issue. Last week, the State of Idaho passed a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is also pending in 37 other states.
Source (http://www.prisonplanet.com/virginia-calls-health-bill-unconstitutional-files-suit.html)
Ron Paul: IRS Will Steal More Money To Fund Health Care
Only thing that will repeal Obamacare will be bankruptcy of the United States, warns Congressman
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 22, 2010
Texas Congressman Ron Paul warns that last night’s passage of the health care reform bill will prompt the government to hire thousands of new IRS agents who will be used to steal money from taxpaying Americans to fund the new program.
Paul also told Fox News that the passage of Obamacare will only be repealed once the United States enters bankruptcy as a result of its exploding national deficit and runaway spending.
“Any time a government tries to give you a service or something of substance, they have to steal it from somebody else, so the whole process is immoral because it’s based on government theft, that’s why they’re hiring 16,000 more new IRS agents, because they have to steal more money,” stated the Congressman, referring to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/16500-more-IRS-agents-needed-to-enforce-Obamacare-88458137.html) and the House Ways & Means Committee that found “Up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses,” under the health care bill.
Paul said that the passage of Obamacare will precipitate a deepening of the economic crisis that will be “defined by the destruction of the dollar,” meaning government won’t be able to pay for anything.
“You cannot spend this kind of money, borrow this money and create new credit to finance this debt….medical care will get worse and this country will go into bankruptcy,” added Paul.
“This idea of an executive order amending the bill just is such an outrage,” said the Congressman, slamming Obama’s intention to bar federal funding for abortion after the vote as both misplaced and completely unconstitutional.
“To think that we’ve gotten to a point where we allow our presidents just to write an executive order as the law of he land, there’s nothing conceivable about that being Constitutional,” said Paul.
Throughout his campaign, Obama promised not to use executive powers and signing statements (http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obamas-promise-on-using-executive-power-to-change-laws/) to change laws, a principle he has completely abandoned in pursuit of his big government agenda.
Congressman Paul warned that apparent efforts to prevent health care money being used to fund abortions were utterly ineffectual, saying that hospitals and clinics are just going to shift money around to fudge evidence of where the funds are being used.
On the wider argument behind government providing health care, Paul stated, “Central economic planning, if anything the 20th century proves, central economic planning fails, every country in the world today is on the verge of bankruptcy….and we’re marching on to a worldwide economic catastrophe if we’re not careful.”
Watch the clip below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1UI21wL26I
Source (http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-irs-will-steal-more-money-to-fund-health-care.html)
http://members.cox.net/phxtech/Ayn_Rand.JPG
Is there a law that forces you drive? -- its protects those you may harm as you utilized the privilege to drive.
Buy a horse, problem solved. Don't comply with obama-care, the IRS can put your butt in jail.
lovely!
What's the difference between having the privilege to healthcare access and the privilege to drive?
I have to pay an annual tax to own a horse, BTW. I don't think I can ride on public roads either.
it's not unconstitutional with constructive yeas and nays.
Show me their authority to force me to pay for medical insurance.
My gov forces me to buy insurance (http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=40-3104.html) already.
You have the right to leave the state of Kansas & stay in the USA. Where do we have to go now?
Stop acting like your party is superior.
What party is that?
Show me their authority to force me to pay for medical insurance.
um, i think congress has the power to make laws.
but, um, right, so there should be no laws made, ever. we should never adjust to situations and should live like we're independent agrarians in the late 18th century.
My gov forces me to buy insurance (http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=40-3104.html) already.
Mandatory auto ins is only there to protect others from the damage you may cause them with your vehicle.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 09:35pm
What's the difference between having the privilege to healthcare access and the privilege to drive?If by privilege to health care you mean mandated by pain of jail and enforced by the IRS, then we agree health care is privilege. -- slavery is freedom.
I have to pay an annual tax to own a horse, BTW. I don't think I can ride on public roads either.Usually that depends on how you're shoe'd, local laws may vary. Gee, what freedoms your local government allows.
um, i think congress has the power to make laws.Constitutional laws with due process, I think I see where you seem to get so confused.
but, um, right, so there should be no laws made, ever. we should never adjust to situations and should live like we're independent agrarians in the late 18th century.Yeah, laws should be more difficult to make, we've made waaaay to many.
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/108/610xrn.jpg
um, i think congress has the power to make laws.
Yes they do. However, slavery is outlawed. Forcing me to pay foir heathcare is slavery, no?
Izzat Keith Richards in the photo with Pelousi?
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8171/captdbce84a3128a408eaf7.jpg
Nancy with her "my first gavel" from Hasbro.
You have the right to leave the state of Kansas & stay in the USA. Where do we have to go now?
I do. Is there a state that does not require insurance?
What party is that?
Same ones who will bellyache all day long but won't do anything about it when given the chance.
Mandatory auto ins is only there to protect others from the damage you may cause them with your vehicle.
Required to pay for something I hopefully will not need, and probably couldn't afford if I did and never had it. Just like health insurance.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 11:27pm
I do. Is there a state that does not require insurance?You don't have to drive thus no need for car insurance. You DO have to have health insurance, well unless you opt out.
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/586/1269281044044.gif
If by privilege to health care you mean mandated by pain of jail and enforced by the IRS, then we agree health care is privilege. -- slavery is freedom.
Nice try, but you don't have to put words in my mouth. By privilege I mean the privilege to go into debt for treating an asthmatic child, or removing a gall bladder. I can do everything I can to treat things at home, and live as healthy as possible, but there are some things out of my control. Maybe its just my responsibility to die if I can't fix myself? Survival of the fittest seems a bit archaic.
Usually that depends on how you're shoe'd, local laws may vary. Gee, what freedoms your local government allows.
Thanks. I'm not sure other municipalities differ much on allowing horses, though. For the record, the nearest bus stop is 3 miles away, and the last nearest connector stop is at 6pm. The optional vehicle just practically isn't. So why does the government treat me like a possible criminal?
You don't have to drive thus no need for car insurance. You DO have to have health insurance, well unless you opt out.
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/586/1269281044044.gif
Whats the alternative now? They just go get fixed on your dime?
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 12:04am
Medical bills get expensive, having diabetes I find it can become very expensive periodically. I have to spend a little more on food to get stuff that my body can process easier. Yeah, I get tired of having to buy all that food too.
HEY!! -- Maybe my new health care can provide a prescription for those more expensive food that are healthier for me. You know, as preventive medicine.
I think the government should just provide me food all the time. Why should I have to pay for the privilege to eat when I have other bills to pay? (I sure could use a new hard-drive right now) Fucking grocers, making a profit on a basic necessity of life.... we need a law, lets declare war on evil grocery industry.
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 12:18am
Whats the alternative now? They just go get fixed on your dime?and therein lies the real issue. Thanks to the nanny state: You do not need to have car insurance unless you want to drive a car. You MUST pay for health care as long as your sucking air.
It funny. In this day there's really not much you can do and be productive without having to answer to and pay a fee for the privilege to do so.
Medical bills get expensive, having diabetes I find it can become very expensive periodically. I have to spend a little more on food to get stuff that my body can process easier. Yeah, I get tired of having to buy all that food too.
HEY!! -- Maybe my new health care can provide a prescription for those more expensive food that are healthier for me. You know, as preventive medicine.
I think the government should just provide me food all the time. Why should I have to pay for the privilege to eat when I have other bills to pay? (I sure could use a new hard-drive right now) Fucking grocers, making a profit on a basic necessity of life.... we need a law, lets declare war on evil grocery industry.
Last time I checked, there are no regulations on growing your own basic necessity of life. You can't grow your own healthcare.
My examples were specific to potential time-sensitive and life-threatening issues that modern medicine can often easily and quickly address. That is, if you have the ability to pay. You have no choice. Die or suffer, or get it looked at.
I pay for the privlege to wait in line at the ER, the privlege to argue over copays and deductibles, and the privlege to wrestle with the insurance provider to decide whether my treatment was deemed "medically necessary" as determined by their definition. And for what? To pay the ONLY hospital here who can see me in 15 minutes? To pay the ONLY hospital who has the latest and greatest 20million dollar color MRI machine to take 4D pictures of my broken big toe? Yes its a business, but its not driven by the same supply/demand cost ratio traditional businesses are working on. I'm not calling them evil. They are living off insurance money. Just like body shops are offering concierge, live webcams showing your car getting repaired, and free loaners. Its not the consumers paying for those services, its insurance money. Wonder why cars are so easily totalled these days? What happens next, both with the current gov plans and with current insurance....people become totalled?
Look, I'm not for this healthcare plan (it doesn't address my concern over rising costs or offer a public option), but something has to be done. If its not the government's responsibility, who has the power to do something about it? Its not like I can shop somewhere else. I have the choice of ONE hospital out of four in this city. If I were to get critically injured in a car crash, I am easily looking at 10k for the first hour in the ER. I can't grow that myself, or shop at the dollar store, or buy my cheapass bandaids from WalMart.
and therein lies the real issue. Thanks to the nanny state: You do not need to have car insurance unless you want to drive a car. You MUST pay for health care as long as your sucking air.
It funny. In this day there's really not much you can do and be productive without having to answer to and pay a fee for the privilege to do so.
So you're for the status quo? You're for paying for uninsured people anyway? :confused:
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 01:08am
No, I'm not for the status quo. I'd like to see an open market, tort reform and some of the other ideas that never got any play with bill. Being that I'm a pre-existing condition that would be nice although I understand the reality of that situation. I accept that as a risk of living in a free society, I take charge to protect my health as best I can. We pay good money for a good plan, it was choice we made long ago and have paid into for well over a decade.
The bottom line is simple; government cannot and does not provide freedom, it can only reduce it or protect it. This bill reduces it, that's a failure to protect it, which is the purpose of the constitutional powers.
We have way too many laws that are anti-freedom.
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 01:16am
Last time I checked, there are no regulations on growing your own basic necessity of life. You can't grow your own healthcare.
So how much food has your garden provided this winter? Enough to live on? I'd say 2 weeks of snow would become time sensitive in most gardens.
Yeah Mir, I get your point. I'm just saying the nanny state sux. The entire argument used for health care can be used on many points of persons life. I'm not against helping others, in fact I help other more often than you might think from my mean-ol'-online-persona. The government is not the answer, it is a big part of the problem.
I do. Is there a state that does not require insurance?
Are you talking about auto insurance?
No, I'm not for the status quo. I'd like to see an open market, tort reform and some of the other ideas that never got any play with bill. Being that I'm a pre-existing condition that would be nice although I understand the reality of that situation. I accept that as a risk of living in a free society, I take charge to protect my health as best I can. We pay good money for a good plan, it was choice we made long ago and have paid into for well over a decade.
The bottom line is simple; government cannot and does not provide freedom, it can only reduce it or protect it. This bill reduces it, that's a failure to protect it, which is the purpose of the constitutional powers.
We have way too many laws that are anti-freedom.
Unfortunately, there is no complete bill. The voted-on beginning of a solution is far from ideal. It only forces more people to pay into a pool, which on paper may temporarily reduce our insurance costs (more income for the pool), but still does nothing to keep the actual problem of medical costs in check.
We too have decided to pay for the best coverage, but in the past five years the coverage has gone drastically downhill while the costs have gone uphill. Again, you're paying for a service that has no real consumer price elasticity of demand. Even with the so-called provider write-offs....
Once we address that problem, we may be able to resolve the problems of many. Perhaps this bill (whenever they finish it) is a start. Perhaps its a start in the wrong direction. Only time will tell.
So how much food has your garden provided this winter? Enough to live on? I'd say 2 weeks of snow would become time sensitive in most gardens.
Yeah Mir, I get your point. I'm just saying the nanny state sux. The entire argument used for health care can be used on many points of persons life. I'm not against helping others, in fact I help other more often than you might think from my mean-ol'-online-persona. The government is not the answer, it is a big part of the problem.
The new raised bed is going in the ground today, actually. Right now seedlings are growing in the basement. I'd like to try winter gardening.
Are you talking about auto insurance?
Yes. I'm curious if there are states that don't require at least liability. A quick and dirty google results in those pesky fake-dmv-consulting sites.
Ah, my mistake. In that case, don't drive. Problem solved.
Ah, my mistake. In that case, don't drive. Problem solved.
at least on public roads.
There's some pretty big private spreads aroung here. All good there.
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm)
Speaking about driving...
A little summary:
By: Anonymous
The principle of the license itself it NOT unconstitutional in that you need to get one to show that you are of legal age and competent enough to drive a vehicle; in this way your rights are not violated because the license is merely an instrument to show that you know how to drive.
However, your rights are violated when your license, and hence, your right to move about freely (in most cases) is taken from you without due process of law (i.e. it automatically expires and you have to pay a "fee" to reinstate it, it is revoked because you didn't pay child support or because you didn't pay a traffic ticket, etc.) And in answer to John Pennington above, actually there have been several cases. Quotes sited below are from actual cases:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938,
at 941.
In short: You have a right to drive; it's not a privilege. Think of it this way: you tax dollars that you work to pay for put the roads into existence for you to drive on. They are not owned by a single person or entity, they are owned by YOU. Therefore, you have the right to use that road. The only time your right to drive should be taken away is if you infringe upon the rights of others (i.e. driving down the road drunk, thereby endangering the lives of others which is a violation of THEIR rights to pursue life and happiness). The license regulations do need to be revised and fixed so that they are no longer unconstitutional.
Source (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/39244)
Laws that say you must have a drivers license in order to drive refer to a "motor vehicle", not "automobile". Those two words have different legal meanings.
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
Source (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm)
Texas requires liability for operating a motorized vehicle on a public road.
One of the larger missed issues about required auto insurance...
Many (most?) states have a self-insurance clause. If you can prove you have liquid assets valued at X dollars, you are considered insured.
One of the larger missed issues about required auto insurance...
Many (most?) states have a self-insurance clause. If you can prove you have liquid assets valued at X dollars, you are considered insured.
You must have 25 vehicles currently registered in your name in KS. At that point you can apply for an audit to get licensed by the Dept of Revenue as being self-insured.
In California, you can have a $35,000 cash deposit at the DMV or have a DMV-issued self-insurance certificate (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm), which also requires owning 25 cars.
States get screwed by Obamacare (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-cap25-2010mar25,0,3079004.column)
California's share looks to be $2 billion to $3 billion. Meanwhile, teachers here are being laid off by the truckload because there's no state funding anymore.
ResearchMonkey
3/25/10, 04:54pm
Illegal aliens vote more often then our children in Cali
In California, you can have a $35,000 cash deposit at the DMV or have a DMV-issued self-insurance certificate (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm), which also requires owning 25 cars.
When we moved to CO from CA we purchased a 24', 26,000 GVW, high cube, GMC truck. As it turns out, insurance companies will not carry a rider on this type of vehicle because they consider it a commercial vehicle. They want you to own a business and to carry an umbrella policy on the business and the vehicle.
I called Sacramento and asked the DMV if the $35,000 CD deposit of Proof of Financial Responsibility would apply to the above described vehicle if the vehicle would be used for a non-commercial purpose ie: the interstate transport of personal goods and chattel. They said "No problem", sent us the forms, we got the CD, and we sent the passbook to Sacramento where it was held on file for the duration of the move and subsequent sale of the vehicle.
Worked like a charm.
The interesting thing about the letter we were sent from Sacramento, that certified the CD on deposit, was it stated that we were to copy the letter as many times as necessary and to place a copy of same in every vehicle the depositor owns.
Bought the truck in CA for $10,000.
Sold it in CO for $13,500.
Made the interest on the short term CD when we cashed it in.
Moved 1,200 miles and made money in the process. :coffee:
Kicking and screaming back on subject, the suits are still coming in in droves.
If we start losing doctors, as Dr. Jane Orient predicts, we will simply do what every other country with socialized health care has done. We will import foreigners to take their places.
SOURCE (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/30/medical-society-files-lawsuit-block-health-care-overhaul/cerns/)
Updated March 30, 2010
Medical Society Files Lawsuit to Block Health Care Overhaul
FOXNews.com
First, do no harm. Second, sue the government.
With the president's ink barely dry on the health care overhaul's final fixes, a group of nearly 5,000 American physicians is filing suit to stop the mammoth new law dead in its tracks.
"I think this bill that passed threatens not only to destroy our freedom in medicine but to bankrupt the country," said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The Arizona-based medical coalition filed suit on March 26, arguing that congressional reforms illegally coerce individuals into buying insurance from private companies.
Starting in 2014, anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance faces a small federal penalty, but in 2016 the fine jumps to $695 a year per person or 2.5 percent of overall income, whichever is greater. That means that anyone earning more than $27,800 would be subject to increasing penalties, with a maximum fine of $2,085 per family.
Supporters of the law call it a simple tax meant to shore up coverage nationwide; but the AAPS says the mandate is an "unprecedented overreach" — an unconstitutional grab that rewards insurance companies and allows the federal government to seize private property in violation of the 5th Amendment.
Insurers "will have millions of new, unwilling customers that they wouldn't have gotten," said Orient, an internist based in Tuscon. "They're counting on getting all this new money."
Though legal challenges to the new law are popping up nationwide, the conservative-leaning AAPS is the only medical society to file suit against the health care package. The American Medical Association, the largest physicians' group in the U.S., supported the health care overhaul and lobbied on its behalf.
Orient says she hopes more groups will join her suit, and predicts a shortage of doctors as the medical community adjusts to the new law.
"We need to get back to the old-fashioned style of medicine where doctors worked for their patients and patients paid their doctors," she said.
We will import foreigners to take their places.
SOURCE (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/30/medical-society-files-lawsuit-block-health-care-overhaul/cerns/)
oh no, foreigners...
coming to take jobs that many americans lack the drive to complete the schooling for anyway ...and that would be something new?
ResearchMonkey
3/31/10, 11:55am
Same argument they use for farm workers? So exactly what jobs are good for Americans, ass-sitting?
oh no, foreigners...
coming to take jobs that many americans lack the drive to complete the schooling for anyway ...and that would be something new?
http://www.pulpit-pimps.org/images/general-images/ten-favorite-knee-jerks.jpg
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.