CNS News: CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: Are you serious? Are you serious?
Popular Posts:
- Mississippi leaders hold health care forum
- Business leaders discuss new health care reform
- Advice on health care reform law offered at KC forums
- Health-care reform topic of employers’ seminar
- New Health Care Bill Pros and Cons
@bosszeroboss
She did more than marry a billionare—all that money comes from war contracts
Thanks for the video
This bitch should stick to studying for her pap test. Cause she sure doesn’t know shit about the constitution
YO Nancy..dont let the door hit you in te ass on the way out of Congress.
Now they’re saying that it isn’t a mandate… it’s a tax. What a lame excuse. This piece of trash law can’t be repealed fast enough.
Her response says it all. “Are you serious” that you think I give two f’s about the Constitution. Crazy old witch. Thanks for posting this.
could someone please tape a quarter or a dime to this bitch so she would be worth throwing away???
Yes, exactly where in the US Constitution, Article 1, does the Congress derive authority to order us to buy anything? Congress can provide us with something and tax us relevantly, but to tell us to go to a health insurance provider and buy insurance, no, I don’t see it in the US Constitution.
i cant stand her she is a pig….she is gone soon byby nancy u looser…
Another blithering imbecile. She also said health care was a right! Well no it’s not. For it to be a right, it would appear in the “Bill of Rights.” That would mean Congress would have needed a supermajority to pass this as an amendment to the Constitution. They had to bribe their own party Congressmen to barely squeak out a simple majority to pass that POS bill that nobody read.
Long pause…… Then a non-answer in the form of an attack. How typical.
“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” Alexander Hamilton, Aug 28, 1794
Oh yeah we’re serious. It will be a very nice day indeed when we’re riding her out on a rail and she’s thinking, “I guess they were serious!”
Wow. That made zero sense. How is justification a contradiction?
@kubush “I gave you the answer and you admit that it could justify almost anything…”
The self-consciousness of this statement basically acknowledges you understand its own inconsistency: you’re admitting the contradiction, then attempting (rather pathetically) to use it as evidence against being contradicted.
Fucking morons—you’re spent dude. Just quit while you’re ahead.
I gave you the answer and you admit that it could justify almost anything….well, there you go. The Commerce Clause gave the govt a lot of power and it does justify an individual mandate, if you don’t buy it thats fine but dont accuse me of not giving u an answer.
And for the 5th time you evade you ‘high risk pool’ idea because you know you can’t defend it.
@kubush WOW, just WOW. Not with a bang, but a whimper. The argument is about constitutionality and you’re trying to evade a line of reasoning you obviously can’t defend and don’t even understand.
Zero answers. That’s what I thought.
Try again.
Yes. Say that to yourself 5 times. Maybe it’ll sink in.
@kubush Getting desperate?
@kubush Wow, you really have nothing.
“I’ve already told you such a pool is perfectly possible…”
Did I ask you whether it was possible? No. Pay attention: If you had a pool like this, how would you stop everyone from dropping their insurance?
That’s not a grammar problem, its context. Retroactive means to affect after the fact. So unless you mean that it applies to the govt in the past, I think it matters.
@kubush Oh, here comes the grammar troll, always the last pathetic gasp of someone whose lost the substance argument, and must shift to language instead, a completely different standard than the one under discussion.
And what is the legal definition of “retroactive,” I’m curious?
@kubush I’ve already told you such a pool is perfectly possible, but current law doesn’t allow it, just to favor the industry. Where are my “falsehoods” and “mischaracterizations”? List them. For the love of God, have the honor to defend your views, instead of acting like a child armed with liberal talking point hearsay and rote assumptions of unlimited federal power (funny how you libs are against this only when it favors some other ideology).