Thursday, March 18, 2010

Obamacare Dead If Slaughter Rule Used

The Slaughter rule is questionable regarding the constitution. In fat Pelosi already took the issue in Court in 2005. Pelosi lost then so she believes she has the right to use this scheme again when it benefits her. The President doesn't care about anyone but himself and believes in whatever means necessary. The problem for Obama is that if the Slaughter rule is used the Supreme Court may not find in his favor.

This all goes back to the original ruling. The Court did not find in Pelosi's favor but clearly left the door open and clearly had issues with the deem and pass rules. Now enter the 2010 State of the Union Address. Obama broke with protocol and scolded the justices in an inappropriate forum. Obama made a spectacle of the Court in front of millions in a forum where the Justices could not defend themselves. The court like the country leans to the right. For the most part this court rules in favor of the people. I wouldn't be too sure this court would not see the shenanigans used by the Democrats in the form of the Slaughter rule and reconciliation would be seen kindly by a Court to begin with. The country is against this bill. The bill can pass no other way (if it is used). The courts would see a rule by fiat which would crumble a democracy of any kind (representative democracy or true democracy).

Then there is the nasty issue of individual mandate. I believe the individual mandates also violate the Constitution. Many liberals compare health insurance to Automobile insurance. This is ridiculous. Auto insurance and health insurance are apples and oranges. Auto insurance is only mandated for those that have a desire to own and register an automobile. In order to have the privilege of owning, registering, and driving a car it must be insured. In other words there is a choice. Just go into any major city and ask how many residents have auto insurance. I'll bet my next years salary that you will finds 100's of thousands in a major city that do not have auto insurance. Why one might ask? The answer is simple they don't own automobiles, don't have driver's licenses, and don't drive. Health insurance on the other hand is mandated and the only requirement is that one must be born alive. That is hardly a choice.

For the same reason, abortion is about Freedom of Choice so is Health insurance. The Government has no business telling an individual what the individual must use their money for. Sure the government could take the money in the form of taxes but then it must also provide a service. No service, no money. In the end, this bill may not pass Constitutional muster.

Obama the Big Zero did himself no favors by alienated the enforcer of the Law of the land. There is already a lawsuit prepared if the Slaughter rule is used. I am sure a lawsuit is prepared should the bill pass with individual mandates. The bill is unconstitutional and may not survive the year. I believe in the end Obama Care is dead, the Democrats just won't admit it.


Anonymous said...

Constitutionally this is an abomination. If the court allows either one of these things, I call BS. We're so dumb in this country we actually believe health and auto insurance are comparable. First, auto insurance is mandated on the state level. Fine. If other states want to be like Massachusetts and mandate it for their residents and go bankrupt, fine. If a lot of people don't like what a state does, they should be free to go to another one. However, doing these things at the federal level violates the tenth amendment (hell, at least half the things the federal government does anymore are unconstitutional).

Anonymous said...

Good fill someone in on and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.