Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Compactcare: The Progressive Tactic

    By Croton Crier, Section News
    Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    Tags: Health Care Compact, healthcare, Obamacare, progressives, state compact, Article 1 Section 10 (all tags)

    Context, context, context.  That should be the standard of success when applying the Constitution to the proper role of government.  The Constitution, as written, is easy to pick up and read.  Anyone who wishes can easily understand the Founders' intent and meaning.  However, spend too much time doing that and you will be labeled and considered a threat by Homeland Security. It is the progressive tactic to undermine truth and freedom by taking out of context the true meaning of our Constitution and the Founders' intent.  It is the progressive mindset that warps the meaning of words and the proper role of government.

    What is the proper role of government?  The powers enumerated to the federal government are 1) to protect the people's rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and 2) to stick to its powers as defined in Article 1 Section 8. Nowhere in the Constitution or primary founding documents do we find that government is to manage or regulate business.  The main idea of the Revolution was to get out from under the royal manager of the time, King George, and the yoke of bureaucratic regulations.

    The tactic of taking the Constitution out of context is progressive.  This tactic molded our static list of rules that the constitution was into the living, breathing document liberals want to believe it is. This tool allows progressives to promote their agenda of choice.  The massive debt and burdensome regulations that we groan under are an example of the yoke of the "living, breathing" mindset.

    Government intervention in health care has caused most of the problems within the health care industry.  Now, we believe government interference like a Health Care Compact (HCC) will solve the problems?  We should look to government to save us from government?  It is time to break the chains by breaking this pattern of thinking.

    The Health Care Compact seeks to soften the blow of Obamacare on the health care industry.  The attempt to shift the power of regulation from the feds to the states, on the surface, seems noble and right.  Many times what seems right is accompanied by unintended consequences that tend to nullify liberty.  The HCC seeks to restore liberty to health care and health insurance, but this Compact will do the opposite of the HCC framers' intent.

    As the HCC Bill states:   14 Whereas, the member states recognize that consent of congress 15 may be more easily secured if the member states collectively seek 16 consent through an interstate compact.

    The authority for the Health Care Compact is taken from Article 1 Section 10 of our Constitution.  This section puts restraints on the States.  Section 10 gives the people the right not to have their state enter into a compact that might involve the nation in a war or conflict.  The whole context of section 10 involves preventing the State from entangling the nation in any kind of war or conflict.  Section 10 does not give the States authority to band together to regulate industries.

    This restraint makes sense in the context of protecting the People's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The idea of states making compacts while vesting regulatory authority over an industry in the states is pure fascism.  Pointing out the context of this HCC as unconstitutional is an understatement.

    The Health Care Compact is an example of how a progressive would end run the Constitution under the guise of safety (from the federal government) and health (it's for the children's sake). Rather than "protecting individual liberty and personal control over health care decisions", this unconstitutional authority places the control over personal health care in the hands of state legislatures.

    Attempting to restore liberty using progressive tactics, serves only to legitimize the destruction of freedom and the documents designed to protect that freedom.  When one is serious about protecting liberty from federal overreach, one abhors anything to do with the progressive mindset.

    Another recent progressive attempt at altering our electoral college, The National Popular Vote, via state compact, raises another concern. Saul Anuzis and other GOP lobbyists spent quite some time "selling" this fraudulent idea to Michigan.  Patriots probing into who was behind the compact were met with:  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!  Those brave enough to pull back the curtain revealed the progressive wizard himself:  George Soros.  

    Which begs the question, "Who is behind the Health Care Compact?"

    < Major Withdrawal From MI4CS | Truth And Manipulation >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Bingo (none / 0) (#1)
    by Corinthian Scales on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:11:12 AM EST
    ...and, voilà!  Romneycare for every state.

    The compact is the establishments backdoor.

    Dumb.  Dumb.  Dumb.

    Obamneycare delenda est in DC.

    stores (none / 0) (#2)
    by Tom McMillin on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    gotta feeling the stores in your area are running low on tin foil.

    2016 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Corinthian Scales on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    Socialists never change.  Obamneycare is being played just like they played Social Security tax.

    This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:

    The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially important administrative change that reminds us that it could postpone a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!

    Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the mandate to purchase health insurance is a "tax" for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).

    Why is that important? Because while Congress lacks any power in the Constitution to take over the health care industry, it does have the power to tax. And if it can persuade the Court that the health care mandate is really just a valid exercise of the tax power, then the chances go up that the Court will find ObamaCare constitutional. The logic of this situation is paradoxical:

    1. If the Court finds the mandate is a tax, it will probably uphold ObamaCare.

    2. If the Court postpones a final ruling on the law's constitutionality because it feels the aforementioned Tax Anti-Injunction Act requires it to do so, that decision by itself would signal that the Court suspects but is not yet prepared to say clearly that the mandate is a tax, in which case ... see point 1.

    We could find ourselves in a kind of legal limbo. Because of how the Tax Anti-Injunction Act works -- about which, more anon -- the Court would not be able to render a final judgment until several years from now, thereby denying voters in this fall's elections a critical piece of information: What does the Supreme Court think about ObamaCare's constitutionality?

    This would ensure that President Obama wouldn't have to suffer the political blow of having the Supreme Court strike down his signature domestic achievement before the election -- though it would subtly signal that that achievement might be upheld, eventually. It would also give the unpopular law more time to take root, and thereby give its supporters more time to stave off repeal.

    The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida -- now expanded by 30 minutes, to six hours -- are slated to take place in late March. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July. But will it be the final ruling? That's now less clear.

    Okay, so what is the Tax Anti-Injunction Act? First enacted in 1867, this law sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once a tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.

    The question in the present case is: Is the health mandate penalty a tax, or not? Although Congress was careful not to describe the penalty as a "tax," it does have some of the hallmarks of one. The language establishing it is found in the Internal Revenue Code, and it is collected by the IRS, through the regular income tax return filing and refund process.

    Rest here

    And no, Ruthy isn't going away anytime before 2016.

    My, that's such an odd coincidence.

    Great info! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Croton Crier on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 05:41:04 PM EST
    Kudos to everyone posting great information here.  Does anyone know someone in Lansing who would listen to these ideas?  Public hearings on this do no good because the testimony is stacked with those who support Obomneycare/Sndyercare/Compactcare and benefit from crony capitalism, in other words, socialism.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!

    Related Links

    + Also by Croton Crier
    create account | faq | search