Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Romney Agrees Forcing People to Purchase Insurance is Unconstitutional

How 'bout Judge Henry Hudson?

I hate to say it, but I hope this is just the beginning of using the courts to gum it all up and unravel the agenda.

This gal exhaled with a nice, long "Touche!"

Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, stated, “The present procedural posture of this case is best summarized by the penultimate paragraph of this court’s memorandum opinion denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss:
“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate-and tax-a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.”

The Commonwealth’s challenge argued the MEC and affiliated penalty are beyond the outer limits of the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause, as measured by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

In other words, the Commonwealth asserted, “requiring an otherwise unwilling individual to purchase a good or service from a private vendor is beyond the boundaries of congressional Commerce Clause power.”

Failure or refusal of its citizens to elect to purchase health insurance “is not economic activity historically subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause,” argued the Commonwealth.

I wish we had a few lawyers in Massachusetts with a spine who are in the position to challenge Romneycare, which has the same flawed and unconstitutional attributes.

I'd like to pretend I wasn't shocked when Mitt Romney pulled this humdinger but every time Romney's intellectual dishonesty hits a new low, the duplicity takes my breath away.

One of Romney's signature achievements as governor was a sweeping health care overhaul that also included an "individual mandate" to buy insurance. But with polls showing widespread anxiety over Obama's agenda, Romney has sought to make a distinction between his home state's plan and the law passed by Congress. He argues that there's a legal difference between what he did on a state level and what Obama did nationally.

However, as the law continues to wind its way through the courts, Romney is likely to keep facing questions about his own record.

UUuum, yeah...Like the reason the ruling determined Obamacare was unconstitutional was that it mandates people purchase insurance and imposes a penalty, exactly like Romneycare?

Check this out:

Mitt was for the mandate before he was against it.

Dear Mittens: Everyone in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a beneficiary of all the privileges and immunities in the United States Constitution (at least on paper).


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reminder. I hope that you will keep a Romney archive to be revisited when he hits the campaign trail as a "prolife" conservative


breathnach said...

Mitt is toast. It will be amusing to watch him try and wriggle his way out of the "individual mandate" that he crafted for Massachusetts.