that power found. the other pro-obama care argument is equally weak. the so-called commerce clause whereby the feds regulate interstate transactions gives the government to force us the power to buy things. one thing that the federal government compels to you buy. well, let s me say under the militia act of 1792 people were compelled to buy muskets and powder. bill: what act was that? the militia act. this doesn t actually require people to buy health insurance. i think it would be good if you read the legislation. bill: did i read the legislation. it imposes a penalty. penalty is different than forcing something to buy. bill: forces them to do something if you punish them for not doing it. militia act of 1792, i m sure we are all familiar with that very interesting. that was basically a mandate by the federal government to the 14 existing states at the time to raise a standing militia so the new nation
could defend itself if invaded as it was in 1812. the militia act had nothing to do with commerce. so ms. fredrickson with all due respect was misleading you. today it became clear in the supreme court that most of the justices are extremely skeptical of obama care. here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous cases. and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. bill: in other words, if obama care is allowed to stand, federal power would be increased to a point where americans could be told exactly how to spend their money. precedent will be established. but it won t be. the court is going to rule the health care mandate unconstitutional. it has to. the justices cannot allow a power grab like that. in the end, america must
could defend itself if invaded as it was in 1812. the militia act had nothing to do with commerce. so ms. fredrickson with all due respect was misleading you. today it became clear in the supreme court that most of the justices are extremely skeptical of obama care. here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous cases. and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fdamental way. bill: in other words, if obama care is allowed to stand, federal power would be increased to a point where americans could be told exactly how to spend their money. precedent will be established. but it won t be. the court is going to rule the health care mandate unconstitutional. it has to. the justices cannot allow a power grab like that. in the end, america must
nowhere in the constitution is that power found. the other pro-obama care argument is equally weak. the so-called commerce clause whereby the feds regulate interstate transactions gives the government to force us the power to buy things. one thing that the federal government compels to you buy. well, let s me say under the militia act of 1792 people were compelled to buy muskets and powder. bill: what act was that? the militia act. this doesn t actually require people to buy health insurance. i think it would be good if you read the legislation. bill: did i read the legislation. it imposes a penalty. penalty is different than forcing something to buy. bill: forces them to do something if you punish them for not doing it. militia act of 1792, i m sure we are all familiar with that very interesting. that was basically a mandate by the federal government to the 14 existing states at the time to raise a standing militia so the new nation