What Else WIll They Force Us To Buy?

Buy a Car or Go To Jail; Buy This Washer or Go To Jail; Buy a Refrigerator or Go To Jail

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.-Ore.) says that Congress derived the constitutional authority to make Americans purchase health insurance as part of its very first enumerated power. He was referring to the language at the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

CNSNews.com asked Merkley: "Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health care?"

Merkley said: "The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it's right on, right on the front end." Before CNSNews.com could ask a follow-up question, Merkley's press secretary pulled him away, apparently to attend an event.

Both House and Senate versions of the health care reform legislation mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, an unprecedented form of federal regulation.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," said the CBO. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states raises a "novel issue."

"Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service," said the CBO.

In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it was "not constitutionally sound" for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

"But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want," said Hatch.

And, you know, if that's the case, then we didn't need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn't America. That's not freedom. That's not constitutionally sound."

Hatch said that if we let the federal government begin forcing us to buy things we may not want to buy without having a clear constitutional justification for doing so "we've lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us."

Got Birth Certificate?

To the members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation,

I want to know why our elected representatives, specifically YOU, are remaining silent regarding the question of our present Pretender to the Presidency, Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution. Surely you have heard about it! Seen the billboards? Maybe even received a letter or two from your constituents?

I understand why the main stream media is silent. They are bought and paid for by the far left and the Obama administration. But why you? I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don’t have your hands in the same pockets as the media. So what is it? Are you afraid? If so, of whom are you afraid? Obama? If you are afraid of anybody, it should be the people who elected you, the people you swore to represent at the same time you swore to uphold the Constitution, the people who have the power to remove you from your office in the next election.

WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? And don’t tell me it was published on the Internet. That IS NOT a Birth Certificate. That is a “Certificate of Live Birth”, (And it reported to be a forgery anyway.), and is a totally different document. Anybody, from anywhere in the world, can go to a court house in Hawaii with a live child in tow, born ANYWHERE in the world, and obtain such a certificate.

All a Certificate of Live Birth documents is that the child was born alive. It DOES NOT say where, at what hospital, who the delivering physician was or anything else that would establish that child as a “Natural Born Citizen of The United States of America”. WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Why has Obama spent over a million dollars fighting the release of his Birth certificate, along with his college records, (which I have strong reason to believe would show that he received financial aid as a “FOREIGN STUDENT”.), as well as his passport used to travel “back home” to Africa while attending school here in America?

Why did the U. S. Army back down and “revoke” the orders of U. S. Army Colonel Stefan Frederick Cook instead of deploying him to Afghanistan after he challenged the legitimacy of the orders due to the questionable status of the present Pretender to the Presidency, Barrack Hussein Obama? If Obama has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding that document? WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Have you not seen the petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of Americans asking “WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE”? How dare you and the other so-called “representatives of the people” ignore our demands? And get this right. It is not a “request”. It is a “DEMAND”. We want this question put to rest once and for all.

If in fact, as I have come to believe because of the continued fight by Obama to keep these records secret, he is NOT ELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF POTUS, then the longer this charade continues, the worse the situation becomes. Every Bill he signs, every Executive Order he drafts and ever Czar he appoints, becomes INVALID! The mess he is creating, if ineligible to hold the office, becomes worse with every passing day. Untangling this mess becomes a bigger and bigger problem the longer it is allowed to grow. “We The People” DEMAND an answer to the question of his eligibility to hold the office. WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

As my representatives, I demand that you raise your voice in this matter. I demand that both Republicans and Democrats “represent” the people who elected them, and DEMAND on our behalf that Obama produce the document needed to settle this question. What are you all afraid of? The truth? Do you not realize that “The Truth” and ONLY “The Truth” is all that “We The People” want? It is all that we will accept.

If you or Obama think this will just go away, you are sadly mistaken. If we can not get our elected “representatives” to REPRESENT US, then we will continue though the courts. We will exercise our right to assembly, our right to petition the government, our right to free speech. We will use the same tactics as the far left groups use, and march in the streets of Washington, and protest the fact that our questions are not being answered.

You and all the rest “on the hill” would do well to remember these words. “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, that whenever any Form of Government becomes DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government..."

One way or the other, we will have that which we DEMAND. The Truth! We will have a POTUS who has proven that he or she is eligible to hold the office. We will have “Representatives” who actually REPRESENT us.

I suggest that you align yourself with “The People”, and do that which we have asked.

Again, all we want to know is WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

More sincerely than you can imagine,

How Does The Title of THIS Paper Make you Feel?

Received this in an email this morning from a Brother Marine.
People connected to the N0bama campaign were looking at this issue before he even declared his intentions to run.

They knew it all along and the Globalists are behind it, and I am sure Soros is their guidon! If nothing else about this whole thing pisses you off then how about the sheer arrogance thinking we were all too stupid to pick up on it; or how about a New World Order Agenda so anybody on the planet can come here and run for POTUS. Next we would have Hugo Chavez elected by all our newly "minted" Hispanics supported by all those of color who just vote race not character, along with the rest of our "hand wringing" sheeple!!

While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY.

It's title:
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE caught my eye, and had to read it...http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com/ Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the " Illinois Venture Capital Association's lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community" presented by Sen. Barack Obama So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked into the matter of "Natural born" as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of :"If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!"

AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT:
GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution;
“undecidedly un American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”

Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners. Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States. The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citi-zen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal sys-tem. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.