Since the HR 3590 has already passed Congress by a slim margin of a 219-212 vote, it is of relevance to observe what follows. The Congress roll call in the vote is by itself extremely interesting: Though none of the 178 Republicans voted for the HR 3590, 34 Democrats crossed the line and voted against the Bill. Though the Bill was passed, the scenario shows that no Republican finds it to be helpful for the country and a sizable portion of Democrats also hold the same opinion. It is also concerning that a certain, respectable section of the legal world is convinced that the Health-Care Bill would have unhealthy consequences upon the people of America.
Politicians need to take populist measures to ensure survival in office, however there is no such compunction upon the parts of the legal fraternity who are pointing out obvious discrepancies in the manner the Bill is being handled. Possibly, the concerned legal minds
, in absence of the compulsion to take populist measures, are more objective in their assessment of the situation and the consequences of the Health-Bill. This is something we cannot disregard.
For example, Attorney General Ken Cuccinlelli has already gone on record and declared from his office that Virginia will challenge the federal government on the basis that the health care reform legislation is unconstitutional. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, as well as Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum have also gone on record that they will challenge the reform bill as unconstitutional. Of course, they cannot challenge the Bill before the President endorses the bill and signs it into law. But, that might now happen anytime, and it is worth our time to watch the happenings.
The essential question raised by all legal minds opposing the impending Health Care Law
is that the spirit of liberalism espoused by the bill contradicts the fundamental principles of liberalism on which our nation stands. As Cuccinelli puts it, ''At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.'' Seeing that the impending Health-Care Law makes it mandatory for almost every citizen to be insured by 2014 or face a fine, does raise apprehension of our freedom of choice being curbed and the nation stepping slowly towards a soviet regime. The logic of the legal minds determined to challenge the Health-Care law as soon as it comes into being is that under the guise of health care and reform, the bill undermines the sovereignty of individual states as well as the freedom of the individual citizen. Challengers opine that the Federal Government can force a fine for inaction only upon individuals or entities who engage in interstate commerce. As Cuccinelli puts it, ''If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.''
Something, I might add, no freedom-loving citizen would like. There is no doubt that the health reform is required and laudable, but we have to observe the cost carefully. Once the lines of State sovereignty and individual freedom are obliterated under whatever guise, precedence is established for a slew of other measures by federal government that may not be as healthy or health oriented for U.S. citizens. If that style of government comes to be in our own land, then why did we fight Soviet Russia for so many long years?
The website updates me everyday with new jobs, which makes my job very easy as I have to just login and apply to the job.
LawCrossing Fact #148: For only a small fee, you can access jobs from around the country.