Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform plan would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents of the United States to buy health insurance. President Obama has endorsed this provision.

Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedom, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

The Commerce Clause, found in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, says: “The Congress shall have power to … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Hatch said this constitutional language authorizes Congress to regulate some types of commercial “activity,” which is different from authorizing Congress to force an individual American to engage in a commercial activity he or she is not presently engaged in and–as a free person–does not want to engage in. He said that “not one” of his Democratic colleagues has given a coherent constitutional argument to explain where Congress would derive the authority to do the latter.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded.  “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch said on the CNSNews.com program “Online with Terry Jeffrey.”

He rejected the argument some have made that the federal government forcing everyone to buy health insurance is no different than state governments mandating that people who want to drive must buy auto insurance.

“You know, the illustration they give all the time is: Well, states require people to buy auto insurance. Yeah, they do, if they want to drive,” said Hatch. “But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want. And, you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound. Now, there may be some gimmicky way that they can do this, but I can’t think of a gimmicky way that would be constitutionally justified.”

Hatch was asked about the argument made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.), who told CNSNews.com that the constitutional phrase that says Congress shall have the power to provide or the “general welfare”–which appears in the prefatory language preceding the Commerce Clause and the other enumerated powers of Congress–gives Congress the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. He rejected this argument.

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance–mandating that you have to buy health insurance–is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

Hatch said his Democratic colleagues in the Senate were trying to dismiss the question about the constitutionality of the government forcing people to buy health insurance without presenting a coherent and defensible argument for their position that Congress can exercise this sweeping and novel power.

When asked if any of his colleagues had made a coherent argument for the constitutionality of forcing people to buy health insurance, Hatch said, “Not one. Not one argument. In fact, they just dismiss it as though it’s not significant. But I’ll tell you this, a lot aren’t dismissing it. When we start having the federal government dictate to us what we have to purchase or buy without some commercial justifiable reason–you know, or ‘activity,’ which is the real key word here–we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

When the health-care reform bill was being debated in the Finance Committee, Hatch offered an amendment that would have provided for expedited judicial review of certain provisions in the bill including the mandate that individuals buy health insurance. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled Hatch’s amendment out of order, however, arguing that the issue properly belonged in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to do this.

“We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. ”Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly dismissed the issue without directly saying where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance. When CNSNews.com White House Correspondent Fred Lucas asked Gibbs to comment on the fact that some Republicans were questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, Gibbs said: “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of–I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.”

Hatch said that if Congress claimed the power to tell Americans what things they must buy there would be “no limit” to the power of the federal government over the lives of Americans.

“There’s no limit,” said Hatch.  “And this is a technical issue, but it’s an important technical, constitutional issue. I’ve raised it. A lot of people have said: Hey, you’re right. Some have said: Oh, you’re being extreme. I don’t think we’re being extreme. I think we’re being, we’re concerned about individual liberties and rights, and that’s what the Constitution protects, or at least should protect.”

Continued at CNSNews

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

ObamaCare will nullify much of the Bill of Rights!

Government-Run Health Care Would Ration Care for Disabled Children, Parents and Lawmakers Warn

Are Vaccines Safe?

Number of names on terrorist watch list at 400,000, agency says

During a 12-month period ended in March this year, for example, the U.S. intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a “reasonable suspicion,” according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week.

FBI officials cautioned that each nomination “does not necessarily represent a new individual, but may instead involve an alias or name variant for a previously watchlisted person.”

The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government’s “no fly” list.

This information, and more about the FBI’s wide-ranging effort against terrorists, came in answers from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to Senate Judiciary Committee members’ questions. The answers were first made public last week in Steven Aftergood’s Secrecy News.

Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who has shown concern over some of the FBI’s relatively new investigative techniques assessing possible terrorist, criminal or foreign intelligence activities, drew new information from the agency. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI needed initial information that a person or group was engaged in wrongdoing before it could open a preliminary investigation.

Under current practice, no such information is needed. That led Feingold to ask how many “assessments” had been initiated and how many had led to investigations since new guidelines were put into effect in December 2008. The FBI said the answer was “sensitive” and would be provided only in classified form.

Feingold was given brief descriptions of the types of assessments that can be undertaken: The inquiries can be opened by individual agents “proactively,” meaning on his or her own or in response to a lead about a threat. Other assessments are undertaken to identify or gather information about potential targets or terrorists, to gather information to aid intelligence gathering and related to matters of foreign intelligence interest.

Feingold pointed to a November 2008 Justice Department inspector general audit showing that in 2006, approximately 219,000 tips from the public led to the FBI’s determination that there were 2,800 counterterrorism threats and suspicious incidents that year. “Regardless of the reporting source, FBI policy requires that each threat or suspicious incident should receive some level of review and assessment to determine the potential nexus to terrorism,” the audit said.

In a different vein, the FBI was asked why it is losing new recruits as special agents and support personnel at a time when terrorist investigations are increasing. The FBI responded that failed polygraph tests rather than other factors, such as the length of time for getting security clearances, are the main reason recruits are ending their efforts to join the bureau. In the past year, polygraphs were the cause of roughly 40 percent of special-agent applicants dropping out, the records showed.

Source: Washington Post

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Mind Your Tweets: CIA and European Union Building Social Networking Surveillance System

DHS Video Portrays Average Americans As Terrorists

Obama Website Calls Opponents “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”

When does a “mistake” become a flagrant disregard for parental rights?

When does yet another “mistake” become a flagrant official disregard for parental rights? Another three children have been injected with the swine flu vaccine against their parents’ wishes as schools institute mass inoculation programs with little concern about consent.

A girl in Brooklyn suffered an allergic reaction to the H1N1 shot after nurses injected her with the vaccine without the consent of her mother, Naomi Troy.

6-year-old Nikiyah Torres-Pierre takes medicine to control her epilepsy and for this reason her mother was waiting on doctors’ advice before signing the H1N1 consent form.

However, nurses administered the shot without even checking the girl’s name against a register of pupils who had received parental consent.

“My stomach was hurting, and I was itching,” Nikiyah said after she was released from the hospital,” reports the New York Post.

Officials at Public School 335 in Crown Heights then tried to get Troy to sign a consent form after the fact in a crude attempt to hide their culpability.

“I was insulted. I was really angry. ‘You just incriminated yourself even more,’” Troy recalled thinking.

The NY Post report also reveals that less than half of parents in New York City have consented to have their kids vaccinated, underscoring the widespread rejection of the swine flu shot despite a $16 million dollar federal government propaganda campaign to coerce people into being inoculated.

In a follow-up report yesterday, the NY Post highlighted another two separate cases where children had been vaccinated against their parents’ wishes.

Last week we reported on a boy in Ohio who received the swine flu vaccine despite the fact that his mother clearly refused consent for her child to be inoculated because of previous bad reactions to medicine.

We also highlighted the case of a 7-year-old boy in Montgomery County, who was given the nasal spray version of the H1N1 vaccine despite his father’s objections that his son should be exempted because of underlying health problems.

Despite the fact that a majority of people across the world are now refusing to be duped by the fearmongering surrounding swine flu and rejecting the vaccine, they are being lynched by officials as “extremists” who are harming public health efforts.

In reality, people are refusing to be injected because the vaccine itself, loaded with mercury, squalene and cancerous cells, is a threat to public health. The fact that privileged members of the elite have requested and been given access to vaccines that don’t contain these toxic additives proves that a two tier system is in place – one for the idiot public who the pharmaceutical companies will happily inject with poison because they have government protection against adverse reaction lawsuits, and another for members of the establishment who will propagandize all day long about the safety of the public version of the vaccine yet will refuse to take it themselves.

Source: Prison Planet

Foxnews says Cheerleader disabled by shot is mentally ill

Young Child with Asthma Given FluMist – H1N1 Vaccine at School AGAINST Parents WISHES!!!

Germans Unhappy with Alternative Swine Flu Vaccine for Politicians