Home

A constitutional look at the healthcare bill…you’re not going to like this.

Leave a comment

submit to reddit Tell a Friend 

 

“However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated.”

From: Michael Connelly 
            Retired attorney, 
            Constitutional Law Instructor 
            Carrollton, Texas  
Well, I have done it!  I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.  I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.  I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.  What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. 

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.  The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. 

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government. 

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. More

Understand this! under the U. S. Constitution, “property” is not a theory

2 Comments

Website: www.narlo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Carl J. Circo, BA – JD

University of Arkansas

School of Law

Dear Mr. Circo:

Like so many socialists and radical environmentalists that infect our American colleges and even our government at all levels, you advocate full implementation of UN’s Agenda 21 into American Law under the anti-American policies of “social justice” and “environmental protection”, the latter being illegally used to justify and implement the former.  Your bias is amply illustrated by an excerpt from your recent article: “Does Sustainability Require a New Theory of Property Rights?”

“In pursuing these questions, this Article examines the potential conflicts between sustainability theory and property theory. Part II briefly surveys sustainability concepts, both in theory and in practice. It begins by identifying three main theoretical strains: resource conservation; generational justice; and social justice.”

First of all, under the U. S. Constitution, “property” is not a theory.  It is an absolute right and fully protected by the 5th Amendment.  There is no conflict.  As a matter of fact, the Constitution fails if property is not a right.  Here is an excerpt from a treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders, regarding property rights:

“Property “is defined by (Washington) state law. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense.”

Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.” More

America Rising! We’ve had enough!

Leave a comment

This has to be one of the best video’s done on the current state of corruption in our government.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We elected you on a promise of hope and change. We regret it. In 2010, we are taking our country back. Blue collar democrats, independents, and conservatives. We love our country. We are proud of our founders. And we will fight for our traditions. We don’t want your revolution.

The New “Cult” – Amish?

9 Comments

submit to reddit Tell a Friend 

By Lynn Swearingen  (c) copyright 2010

All rights Reserved

There comes a pivot point in our society. A moment that is frozen in time, cradled in the hands of history when no longer as a society we operate as a unit of common sense. When opponents meet upon a battlefield and decide whom will be the victor. As we look back en-masse the realization that we have gone too far descends upon us : at that moment each individual must look into their very souls and ask “What have we done?”

A moment such as the many that span the written history of the Human race is now unfolding in Wisconsin. The opponents are defined such as David and Goliath. Powerful, strong, large and undefeatable versus the meek and humble, inexperienced in battle. The arrogance and sneering Goliath in this situation is none other than Clark County District Attorney Darwin Zwieg. Our David is Mr. Emanual Miller, an Old Order Amish.

Mr. Zwieg, not content to respect the religious rights, as set forth in the Wisconsin Constitution and cited here: More

%d bloggers like this: