“Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We're giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”
Is this woman stupid or is this woman stupid?
Number one, forcing people to do anything is coercive, and when the federal government tells people they must buy health insurance or be punished, that is coercion. Now, for those “poor people” who are being given a “boatload of money”…sigh…Justice Kagan, is it so hard for you liberals to understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and when the federal government gives money to one group of people it first has to take it—by force or the threat thereof—from somebody else. What is that, if it isn’t coercion?
I love her language. A "gift" from the federal government. Put a gun to somebody's head, take their money, and give it to somebody else. And that becomes a "gift."
No, it is coercion, and coercion is exactly what government is--the nationalization of force! In some instances, it's necessary and has a legitimate purpose--to protect property from criminals and foreign invaders. But, it's still force. Everything government does is does by force, or by threatening to use it. That isn't difficult to understand.
I love her language. A "gift" from the federal government. Put a gun to somebody's head, take their money, and give it to somebody else. And that becomes a "gift."
No, it is coercion, and coercion is exactly what government is--the nationalization of force! In some instances, it's necessary and has a legitimate purpose--to protect property from criminals and foreign invaders. But, it's still force. Everything government does is does by force, or by threatening to use it. That isn't difficult to understand.
Elena Kagan, of course, isn’t on the Supreme Court to think, or to apply the Constitution. She is there for one reason and one reason only—to push a liberal agenda for more and bigger government. To legally steal money from those who have earned it and give it to liberal power brokers to distribute as they see fit (i.e., to buy votes). She’s Obama’s puppet and that’s all she was ever intended to be. She doesn’t have to think, she just obeys.
Is Obamacare unconstitutional? Of course it is, and it only takes a law school education to decide that it isn’t. All one has to do is read the Constitution, a document intended to be understood by everyone. I challenge anybody, anywhere to find the exact clause in Article One, Section 8, that gives the federal government any authority in health care whatsoever. And please don’t try to twist the “commerce” clause past me. The men who wrote the document would be appalled at the way Congress and the courts have utterly butchered the intended meaning of that statement. The Supreme Court was never intended to have the kind of power it has today. Read what the Constitution says about the Court, too, and see if it makes the Supreme Court--nine unelected, unaccountable people who, realistically, cannot be removed except by retirement or death--the final arbiter on what is lawful in the United States.
And, speaking of the men who wrote the document and the federal government’s authority to give “boatloads” of money to “poor people”…Here is a quote from James Madison, the man who is called the “father of the Constitution.” If anybody ought to know what it means, it’s Madison. After all, he wrote it. Madison: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” And they even had boats around back then, too.
But, of course, Elena Kagan knows more about what the Constitution means than the fellow who authored it.