[Vision2020] House Bill 117 - State Sovereignty - FederalHealth Care . . .

[Tom Hansen]

It is the "broad interpretation" of the constitution that has kept it
alive.  As such, there exists a branch of the government charged with
interpreting the constitution on a case-by-case basis; the judicial branch
(Supreme Court).

Otherwise, corporations would not have First Amendment rights, right?

It is my belief that the Founders of the Constitution purposely created it
in this manner; so that the Constituion can "evolve" as the multitude of
attributes of "We, the people" evolve (i.e. technology, social mores, etc.
etc.).

Now, if y'all will excuse me, I really gotta get started on splicing and
editing yesterday's debate on House Bill 117.  The T-man done us good,
V-peeps.

Seeya round the commune, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho




On Thu, February 17, 2011 10:29 am, Art Deco wrote:
> Regardless of what one thinks of effectiveness or noneffectiveness
> mandatory health coverage with a required purchase of insurance and/or the
> present Obamacare, that's not the issue I raised, and I haven't the time
> or the patience to write about such except maybe sometime very generally.
>
> The legal issue which will eventual rise to the level of the U.S. Supreme
> Court is whether mandatory purchase of insurance is constitutional.  On
> one hand there is the state's rights position which says that if the
> constitution doesn't specifically address a subject, then that issue is to
> be left to the states.  On the other side are those that espouse a broader
> interpretation of the constitution based on, among other things, the
> "promote the general welfare" clause.
>
> w.