NO LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Just one more thing today...I keep trying to remind people that there is no legal authority for the Federal Government to involve itself into our health care. I get the 'eyes glazed over' look from people who either don't care or have no idea if the Constitution is allowing Obama or any other administration to mandate our health care. Clueless. I find this so frustrating. First, that any citizen of the U. S. is so unaware of their own liberties that they don't understand what is at stake here. And secondly, it is obvious that Congress has become so drunk with power and Obama is so arrogant that they are going to throw this down our throats whether they have the legal authority or not. So they certainly don't care. And if we don't care...where is the stop-gap?? You can bet the Justice Dept. won't stop them....with Eric Holder in Obama's back pocket, there won't be justice for the foreseeable future. And the Judiciary Branch is controlled by the Justice Dept. so we have no recourse there. So there went three branches of government that are hell-bent to throw away the most precious of our liberties, the freedom to control our own lives / persons / bodies.

The only thing left is State Sovereignty. If you can get your state to declare its rightful sovereignty, allowing no Federal Mandates to enter the state, then there may be a small chance to thwart this plot. Good luck with that. I believe Texas has either done that or is in process. And I think there may be a couple of other states doing this...Georgia being one of them.

Anyway.....here is the bottom line. NO LEGAL AUTHORITY!!
Here is the definitive explanation...Please read below: Mark J. Fitzgibbons from American Thinker

Mark J. Fitzgibbons

"In his September 9 address to Congress and the nation on health insurance, President Obama said that under his plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.

There is no clause in Article I of the Constitution authorizing Congress to craft legislation forcing individuals to purchase insurance.

Mr. Obama attempted to justify his intended federal intrusion on individual liberty by noting that states require drivers to carry auto insurance. Notwithstanding the difference between a requirement imposed on licensed individuals or machines as opposed to a mandate for everyone, he fails to recognize the distinction between federal and state powers. James Madision, writing in Federalist No. 45, says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Mr. Obama's proposal not only deprives us of a freedom to use our money as we best deem fit, and is therefore authoritarian, but it is unconstitutional as well."