There is good news here. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is actually citing the U.S. Constitution in her defense of Obamacare. In particular, she's pointing to the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. The part she points to in that section is the part about states not being allowed to deny citizens 'equal protection of the laws.' Yes, that's beyond laughable but it's another sign that the Tea Party is not only framing the terms of the debate - the Constitutionality of this monstrosity - but will likely win it.
The biggest argument against Obamacare being constitutional is the Individual mandate, which says that the Federal government is authorized to force citizens to purchase something. Lee's defense is basically that those who can't afford that mandate are entitled to the money of those that can. Yes, Lee is pointing to the Fourteenth Amendment to justify wealth re-distribution.
This is Classic.
Via The Blaze:
Jackson Lee wasn't done. The next day, she went on the House Floor and cited the Fifth Amendment, again pointing to the part about pursuit of life, liberty, or property. If she would have kept reading, she'd have stumbled across the last sentence, which says, 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'
Unwittingly, she makes the case against Obamacare by citing this Amendment. Money in my possession is inherently my private property. Therefore, an individual mandate that says I must buy health insurance so that those who can't afford it may have it also is wealth re-distribution and theft. Obamacare takes private property and makes it for public use. More patients and less doctors is hardly just compensation.
Ms. Jackson Lee, PLEASE keep talking.
More at American Spectator
No comments:
Post a Comment