Bombshell!... Bill O'Reilly Announces Obamacare is Unconstitutional (Video)

[stephanie]

Just what Obama needs...
Bill O'Reilly, the nation's top-rated cable news host, with over 3 million viewers every night, just announced that Obamacare is Unconstitutional.

O'Reilly told his audience that the government cannot force Americans to buy something they don't want under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/othG8SbNQR0&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/othG8SbNQR0&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

from and comments at...
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

[SassyLady]

Just what Obama needs...
Bill O'Reilly, the nation's top-rated cable news host, with over 3 million viewers every night, just announced that Obamacare is Unconstitutional.

O'Reilly told his audience that the government cannot force Americans to buy something they don't want under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/othG8SbNQR0&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/othG8SbNQR0&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

from and comments at...
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

Shucks...............how dare O'Reilly edumacate the public about their constitutional rights..........this should really throw a monkey-wrench in the community organizers soup pot.

I can just see the headlines tomorrow - Obama is going to be whining about how that cable news chatter over at that radical right wing channel is picking on him and his vision to change America!

God, it feels good to be labeled a radical........I'm loving it. Now I know why those crazies on the left get so wound up over things! :poke::laugh2::coffee:

Thanks for the heads-up Stephanie.

[Sitarro]

I love Megyn Kelly, she has the cutest eyes, especially when she gets passionate about what she is saying. She's pretty damn smart too!

[Little-Acorn]

What difference does this make?

Of course Obamacare is unconstitutional. So are bank bailouts, takeovers of car companies, "stimulus" payments, etc. This is hardly news.

For that matter, perscription drug "entitlements" are unconstitutional too, as is the campaign finance "reform" enacted during the Bush years, and many other such programs. The government has been enacting unconstitutional programs at least since the 1930s. The fact that they are unconstitutional, has made zero difference in living memory. To suddenly start pretending it's an issue now, is laughable.

I guess the only difference now, is that a major news outlet (actually O'Reilly's show is an opinion show, as he has pointed out many times, not a news show) has at last pointed out the 900# gorilla in the room. But will it make any more difference to the actions of our government, than it has for the last 80-plus years?

But, as I and others have pointed out innumerable times:

The Constitution created the Fed govt in the form (sort of) it's in now, and gave it its powers. And pat of it (10th amendment) says that any power not explicitly listed in it, is FORBIDDEN to the Fed govt, though lower govts ( "the states and the people") can still exercise it if they want to.

And nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Fed govt the power to spend money on stimulus, take over car companies, regulate workplaces, run banks (even if the banks agree)... or run health care. Or a whole bunch of other things the Fed govt has been doing.

The usual excuses cited (Commerce Clause, "welfare clause", "necessary and proper" clause, etc.) have all been long refuted as "authorizing" any of these things. We can go into them yet again, if anyone wants, this _is_ a debate forum.

But the fact remains, that literally most of what the Fed govt does, is a usurpation of power, not authorized to it by the Constitution. Unconstitutionality has been a fact of life ever since the USSC decision "West Coast Hotel v. Parrish" in the 1930s. I suppose it's nice that someone finally noticed, after 80-plus years. But by now, if you are going to start eliminating programs on the basis of their unconstitutionality, you're going to reduce the Fed govt to about 1/4 of its present size.

People can't even get Obama to show a legitimate birth certificate, though he probably has one in his hip pocket even as we speak. And now we want to eliminate programs based on theirr unconstitutionality??? Don't make me laugh.

Well, the debate should be interesting, the more so since these programs (including Fed govt health care) are unquestionably violating the Constitution. But the idea that even proving it, will make the slightest difference to our legislators, is humorous at best.

[namvet]

Osama's Unconstitutional. and so is his entire stinkin admin. they've already rolled it up and smoked it. now they wanna write their own.

[darin]

uh...we have to buy Social Security. :(

[theHawk]

Since when does something being unconstitutional stop shitbag liberals like Obama?
The Constitution is a roadblock for him and his ilk. The Consitution in fact, should be protecting us citizens from such overreaching measures from the government. But who is enforcing those protections upon the government? No one. The Judicial branch, which is supposed to act as a check against this type of illegal activity from the government, doesn't seem to be willing or able to do anything about it.

[Monkeybone]

it's because it is all about control and power. Why should they stop it? They really have no reason too and no one is raising that big of a fuss about it. That is also why they have done it so long.

Who was the last 'common man' to be elected? When has it been someone that wasn't from a prestigious family or what not?