“So right now federal officials are not allowed to enforce Obamacare. Though, I am torn, because on one hand the law is clearly unconstitutional. On the other hand, I just got my White House waiver…The video is here.
I must say, there are two court opinions on each side. Obviously, I find the two that find the two that call it unconstitutional more compelling for logical reasons. There’s no point in having any limits on Congress’s authority if they can force all citizens to buy a product. And, by the way, if this is constitutional then Republicans should turn around and mandate that all citizens be force to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to buy health insurance.”
Five South Dakota lawmakers are taking Coulter seriously:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”They forgot to add the Bible requirement.
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment