1. They may argue that it is within the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and cite which Article etc
2. They may argue that it is not within the powers delegated but that it is necessary, and therefore propose a constitutional Amendment to delegate that power
3. They may argue that it is necessary even though it is not within the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and that it should be enacted regardless.

Put simply, the first two are reasonable and consistent with the Rule of Law in a Constitutional Republic. The third is not – it is an argument in favor of abandoning the Rule of Law and embracing in its place, in the name of political expediency, the Rule of Man and arbitrary power. Which is to say, Tyranny.

There is simply no reasonable argument that support for tyranny is consistent with American conservatism.

http://www. commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0

I would argue that it is not just or even primarily a court issue. If the feds are exceeding their authority then it becomes a State defiance issue. But that is an argument for another day.

David is frustratingly nonchalant in his advocacy of federal health care, and it would be nice if he would at least acknowledge enumerated powers objections. As if conservatives could embrace any and every measure proposed by the feds that they might feel is beneficial in some way. They could, but then it wouldn’t be conservatism. I say again that David does not get American conservatism.

Tactically, I think that some Democrats may actually not want this clunker to pass and then be hung around the neck of their Party. They would rather nothing pass so they could then blame the big mean Republicans and all those angry white males. Abortion may represent a way to tank the thing while seeming to stand on principle. (The same with the public option.) A block of x number of Democrats refuse to vote for it with abortion funding (or public option) and a block of y number refuse to vote for it without abortion funding (or public option) and the whole thing goes down and both sides can claim conscience.

However the essential point, before Mr. Lindsay took some fairly big leaps in logic is correct – this is a big win for the Pro-Life side. It goes to show why any interest group should not put all of its eggs in one basket. Because there was a significant number of pro-life Democrats, this was allowed to pass. Having strong blocs of voters in both parties is what makes such groups powerful like the NRA or even AIPAC for that matter. National Right to Life needs to undertsand this before turning itself into an adjuct of the GOP.

There are rumblings that pro-abortion Democrats may vote against any final bill that includes this amendment but what would it say about them if they did so? That’s why I doubt if they will.

—So your main goal is that you want to provide affordable health care tois polois? But your consolation is that you view them as a burden and wish to punish them by forcing them to buy a poorly regulated service from a private company at inflated costs that have risen far above the average wage increase (or even the bulls*** CPI) virtually since we first got this health care system under Nixon?

Yeah, I am sure those thousands of dollars a year versus the penalty of jail for non-compliance is similar to a drivers license (about $30 every five years versus a fine).

This will only push lower-middle-class and the young (already indebted from the price-inflated education system) and the working poor deeper into debt. And little is actually done to bring the cost of the system down. The HMOs have their much of their liability absorbed by the State. Very progressive, that…