Does regulate now mean force? --- that the president is afforded the ability to trample on our laws is a disgrace
his job description needs to be updated On Oct 12, 9:47 am, GregfromBoston <[email protected]> wrote: > Yea, you can do just about anything and hide it behind General > Welfare. Rather than the article, I should have just cited the > clause, as Bela Pelosi did. > > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several > States, and with the Indian Tribes; > > Does regulate now mean force? > > On Oct 12, 9:51 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > an argument could be made that it provides for the general Welfare of > > the people of the United States. > > > imo, the government shouldn't be in the healthcare business as it's > > overwhelmed with bureaucracy and too wasteful > > there's also the issue of providing healthcare to those who don't pay > > into the system ... bleeding heart politicians can't say no > > > On Oct 12, 8:27 am, GregfromBoston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok, any ideas on how Article 1, section 8 gives the government the > > > power to force particiption in interstate commerce? > > > > Keep in mind, Obama has said over and over again, the penalty is not a > > > tax.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
