Every person elected to office has to swear on oath to uphold the constitution. No politician should have any problem with a review of any legislation to make sure that the federal government is not overstepping the limited powers granted to them by the people.

Pete Visclosky and Evan Bayh each voted FOR this federal takeover with Bayh voting ‘yes’ twice. Their pal Ben Nelson, the guy who got Nevada a sweet payoff deal in exchange for his yes vote on healthcare reform asked all of the AG’s to ‘call off the dogs‘

Meanwhile, you can add the Indiana’ s AG to the list that Ben Nelson originally complained about. You have the republican party to thank for growing a set and demanding that the federal government and the dems currently in control of America be held accountable for their proposed takeover of 1/6th of our economy via this healthcare legislation.

The entire article can be found here.

A snip is posted below.

WASHINGTON — At the request of some Indiana Republicans, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is reviewing the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul bill passed by the Senate last month.

Several Republican senators say the bill’s requirement that most people buy insurance or face a penalty violates the Constitution’s ban on taking private property for public purposes without just compensation.
Advertisement

Republicans also say a provision that could treat some insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan differently violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause.

Republicans used those arguments to back procedural challenges to the Senate’s bill but were defeated in party-line votes before the Senate approved the bill on another party-line vote.

In a letter to Zoeller on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wrote that because votes on procedural challenges took place only five days after the bill’s final language was made public, there was not enough time to study the constitutional issues.

Indiana law allows the attorney general to make “any reasonable or appropriate investigation or study” of federal legislation when asked to do so by a member of the state’s congressional delegation.

“This little-known provision in state law was intended for a circumstance such as this, where proposed federal legislation could have a sweeping impact on state government,” Zoeller said.

Zoeller said he will look at other issues not specifically requested in Lugar’s letter, including a provision added by Democrats to gain the support of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. The federal government would pick up all of Nebraska’s share of the cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid but pay only for most of the expansion in other states.

In that same article it says,

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a self-described progressive legal association, has written a brief arguing that the bill’s insurance mandate is constitutional because Congress has the authority to regulate commerce and set taxes.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that he doesn’t think “that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the legislation.”

When you read the word ‘progressive’ read ’socialist’. The socialist party took on the mantra of ‘progressive’ because it was a politically sexy word that hid who they are and covers up what they really want to do.

I say that there is no way the feds can hide behind the commerce clause in that this healthcare legislation demands and requires the people to purchase something, and that is it’s own right is unconstitutional. What is next? The feds own GM, and GM’s profits are falling, so the feds say ” From now until the end of 2011, the only cars available for your purchase will be GM cars.” ?

Related posts:

1. Indiana Attorney General to Join Lawsuit against Obamacare health care reform

What does this say for our non-representatives? It says that special interest groups, lobbyists, big business have more clout than the people the representatives are supposed to serve.

Oh You Democrats, Don't Be an Ass

Pete Visclosky and Joe Donnelly voted yes in the House, Bayh voted yes in the Senate. When Lugar’s office was asked, directly, in person if the NO stack was larger than the YES stack, according to the letters, calls and emails that he received, his minion refused to answer. They do not want us to know that more people in Indiana told him to vote NO and that the majority of people were against this healthcare boondoggle. He has and had no intentions of voting according to the wishes of the people he serves. His vote, along with Vislocky and Donnnelly were based upon calculations of how to swing votes for re-election. They need the unions, ACORN and SEIU, the AFL-CIO to pull votes for them, so it doesn’t matter what the people of Indiana want.

Here are the polls indicating, for all intents and purposes, the way they should have voted and that vote should have been a big fat NO.

Poll: Support for health care plan plummets, Senate Democrats push ahead

A day after the Senate begins debate on health care legislation a new survey from Rasmussen Reports shows the highest level of opposition yet recorded. In a staggering reversal from last week the poll suggests just 38% of American voters now favor the Democratic health care plan against 56% who are opposed. The previous poll taken on November 13-14 showed support had grown to its highest level since mid-September with 47% of voters in favor against 49% in opposition. (Read the rest of the article here.)

Got that? 49% of the people told them to vote NO. Only 47% wanted them to vote yes, as of Nov. 14th.
As of Nov. 22 56% told them to vote NO and only 38% wanted them to vote yes.

Read the Rasmussen Reports here and see for yourself that the American people do not want this push by Obama to control 1/6 of our economy and bring a government employee into our doctor’s office and our homes. There is something very wrong with what they are trying to do in Congress and people are beginning to wake up. Something is very wrong when so many people are telling our hired help (Lugar, Donnelly and Visclosky) to shove this thing where the sun don’t shine and they adopt a cavalier, pompous and condescending attitude and vote Yes anyway. Plus there is something wrong with a Louisiana Senator being paid off to the tune of 300 million dollars to place a ‘yes’ vote for this legislation. What other kind of deals were cut? How much did Lugar, Donnelly, Visclosky and Bayh get to vote yes?

How many more examples does a person require before they realize that politics, as we have it toady, is dirty and that our non-representatives do NOT act upon the best interests of the people, but act upon their own best interest.

Vote them OUT. Contact a Tea Party, a Patriot group, ANY group that places principle before party. We must act in whatever way we can be that calling, writing, emailing, visiting their local offices, protesting,  whatever we are able to do in order to get them to pay attention and let them know that we are watching them, we are taking notes and come 2010 they will face an election period like none other.

Do not expect the Republicans to help you as they are not much different than the Democrats in placing Party before Principle. Find a candidate that resonates with your goals and desires, find a person who place Principle before Party and believes in the Constitution.

Related posts:

1. Visclosky & Donnelly voted yes to approve H R 3221 Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.