<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>>…</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Omar Rahman<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie Apocalypse!)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:.5in'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><br>Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:51:36 -0700<br>From: "spike" <</span><a href="mailto:spike66@att.net"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>spike66@att.net</span></a><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>><br style='orphans: 2;text-align:-webkit-auto;widows: 2;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>>…</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>The government cannot order its citizens to do something.<br>It can only order us to not do something. The Supreme Court court decided<br>the constitution does allow the individual mandate if the penalty for not<br>buying insurance is declared a tax.</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>The government can and does have the power to order it's citizens to do something<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Only by specific authority from the constitution. Read on please.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> For example we must provide education to our children either in schools or through homeschooling<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The federal government cannot and does not command its citizens to education their children, the state governments do. The Federal government empowers and requires state governments to provide public education. State governments can and do require its citizens to educate their children in some fashion. In some states, such as Idaho, it is almost just a mere formality, this state being extremely open-minded on what constitutes home schooling. The federal constitution says not a word about education. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> It used to issue draft notices<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ja, this is a power specifically enumerated in the constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 12: “Congress has the power to raise and support armies…”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>…Oh, car insurance is another one that comes to mind due to relevance…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'>Car insurance is required by state governments. The US constitution has not one word in there about cars or insurance. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'>There has never been a serious attempt to insert a car insurance requirement into the constitution. Likewise with drivers’ licenses. Some states are issuing them to illegal immigrants. They are asking the Fed to make other states recognize those licenses, but the Fed cannot do that, for the constitution does not allow them that authority. So some states recognize drivers licenses of illegals from other states and some do not. Likewise with same-sex marriage: the Fed cannot order all states to recognize those marriage contracts made in states where it is allowed: the constitution does not contain the words sex or marriage. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#376092;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'>I do confess I would be entertained by any attempt to add an amendment covering those. Would they try to imitate Jeffersonian English? How would they define cars? As a teenager I used to drive a conveyance that might challenge attempts at definition. Legally defining a conveyance is more difficult than it sounds. How would they define gender? Could we see terms for specific organs mentioned in the constitution? This should be entertaining. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> There are probably lots more examples but these two will suffice<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Omar, I will stand by and wait patiently for those examples. But your point is well taken and refuted thus: the Federal government has many clear restrictions on its power imposed by a constitution which was carefully and brilliantly designed by those who knew a lot about what power does to people, having fresh experience with European tyrants. The constitution relies heavily on state governments, and is codified by the last (but certainly not least) of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, amendment 10: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN>‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’</span><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Bravo! Excellent work, my founding fathers!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>In order for the federal government to legally order the citizen to do anything requires a specific amendment or power specifically enumerated in the constitution, examples being payment of income tax (16<sup>th</sup> amendment) and the draft (A1S8c12.) My argument from the start is if the Fed wants an individual mandate, it must first get a constitutional amendment granting it the specific authority to do that. I still think they should do that as step 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The reason this is so relevant to our day is that if you have fifty competing governments, somewhere in that bunch is a government which does things most to your liking. I choose California, warts and all. We all get to choose our favorite government, and we as American citizens have the right to immigrate into any of those fifty states, to choose our favorite government. We do not have the right to go to any country in the world. We can make arrangements for any country if we have a ton of money of course, universal rule. But we have the right to choose any state in the US, regardless of our ability to pay.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I recognize the argument that having 50 governments is not more efficient than having one, but that argument is irrelevant, for the constitution does not contain the term efficient, and the US government has certainly demonstrated that it does not know the definition of the term.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>I'm sure that somehow it is ironic that the members of Congress, even radical Tea Party people I assume, have the government funded health care that they are so afraid of<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>That’s the current fight. The irony is that congressional proponents of ObamaCare want to make sure congress is exempt from it. Congressional opponents of ObamaCare are arguing that congress should be subject to the rules they impose on the proletariat. Which sounds right to you? Ja, me too. Make congress eat the same turd sandwich they serve up to the rest of us.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> Why would you personally Spike pass a bill that took away your government funded health care so that you could get government funded health care? It seems quite logical to strip that nonsensical provision from the bill.<span style='color:#1F497D'> </span>Regards,<span style='color:#1F497D'> </span>Omar Rahman<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Omar, this is a common misperception. ObamaCare really isn’t government funded health care. It is tax-incentivized buy-in to the health insurance system (which is legal) coupled with a pile of restrictions on the health insurance industry’s rate and payout structure (which probably is not legal and certainly not workable as written) along with a couple thousand pages of legislation which never should have been tacked on to this bill.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Omar, what this is really all about is far more than health care. The ObamaCare law as written gives the federal government powers that appear to be outside the rigid bounds of the constitution. Some are comfortable with that, but I am not. They should have gotten an open-ended constitutional amendment first, such as our 16<sup>th</sup> amendment, which created the IRS.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Perhaps a still larger objection is that I can see the law as written will not and cannot succeed. It relies too heavily on young and healthy people buying and overpaying for health insurance. I predict that they will opt out in perfect unison and pay the tax penalty (which isn’t much) then come crawling back if they get sick. >From the insurance company’s point of view, it would be the high school track team running the other way and the zombie horde from Thriller staggering inbound with huge medical bills in their rotting hands. Any young and healthy who buys in, I wouldn’t trust them. The system cannot succeed without them. I personally would benefit greatly if they all came in and paid, for they subsidize my health insurance costs. I personally reap great benefits if it works. But it will not. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>ObamaCare is the most poorly designed piece of legislation in American history, utterly without exception. It was never properly debated on the floor of the Senate and is full of obvious flaws, such as the one cited above: the government imposes on the insurance companies a rate structure. The only person in government who has read the whole thing is Ted Cruz, the man who railed against it for over 20 hours and was just getting warmed up. His so-called filibuster is the bulk of the public debate on the topic. I think we need to start all over with a clean sheet of paper. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>