Levin slams Weiner over ObamaCare ruling comments

Weiner still contends that ObamaCare is Constitutional and that the most recent federal ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional is nothing more than a ground ball. Levin hits back hard noting that Weiner is making a totalitarian argument, that because you purchase a product or a service that Congress can therefore used the Commerce clause to mandate that you purchase something else. Or basically, because you exist they can force you to purchase something.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Conservative Hippie

    Sounds like Levin hit a home run!

  • Diamondback

    Weiner is the most appropriately named person in Congress methinks.

    • Anonymous

      Up is down and down is up when talking to that Oscar Meyer.

      • Conservative Hippie

        I like Oscar Meyer. I don’t like Weiner

  • Anonymous

    There’s a great break down of the ruling over at Commentarama. What the ruling means and how it will work it’s way through the legal process up and to the SCOTUS.

  • Anonymous

    Mark Levin is common sense; wrapped in an intellectual genuis’ body. BTW, what is wrong with most New York politicians ? Gun-grabbing Chuckie Schumer, Weiner, and even that RINO elitist Peter King( DHS committee chair… WTF !). States like NY, California, Illinois are the perpetual thorn in the Republic’s side…..

  • Anonymous

    In Michigan we prefer coneys, Shoneys, and baloneys.

    Though Weiner IS full of baloney, so he’s got that working for him. If we turned him top-down, bottom-up and inside out, he’d be tasty as hell AND he’d still be showing his ass.

  • Anonymous

    After seeing Pelosi, Grayson, Biden, Boxer and thousands more brain addled Democrats ramble incoherently for decades, you would think that we had just about seen it all, but this Weiner takes the top prize for liberal instability, I think it is his level of immaturity that puts him over the top. Loved his interview on Fox, where he pouted and refused to look at the camera or answer a question he disliked, his immaturity level would embarrass a 2nd grader, but not the Democrats.

  • Rich

    DId you love Weiner’s reasoning or what? His claim is that the bill was aimed at making sure that no longer did those with health insurance have to pick up the bill for those w/o it when those w/o it went to the emergency room.

    So his fix? To increase to pool of those w/ insurance so even more people will have to pick up thebill and get screwed over by those w/o insurance when they show up to the emergency room (yes, there will still be plenty who don’t get insurance and then show up for there highly expensive procedure and someone else gets to cover it). The hell? How do you see a problem and then decide that the best solution is have even more people affected by that problem?

    But you see, he phrases his statement in a way that hides what is really going on. He says congress does have the right to regulate the person who shows up in that emergency room w/o insurance. Maybe he’s right. But the fact is that that isn’t the person Congress is regulation here. They are regulating everyone, including the millions and millions who have yet to show up in that emergency room. I wonder if Weiner knows this, or if he’s actually convinced himself that what Congress is doing is constitutionally credibly.

  • Rich

    But anyway, let’s stretch this out.

    Under Weiner’s belief, because a person might one day use the health care system, the congress has the right to regulate them. Ok, so I can almost guarantee that most of us will one day buy food, have bought food, are buying food, and will continue to buy food. Does the Congress have the right to to tell you what to eat? Drink?

    One day you’ll buy some clothes, too. Does Congress have the right to tell you what to wear?

    See, this is going even beyond just this arguement of health care. In this argument, the plaintiffs argued that people weren’t even participating in commerce and therefore could not be regulated. That’s true. But let’s say they were? Let’s say there going to buy some food, does Congress have the right to regulate once the product is bought? NO!!! That’s INSANE to think the Founders would have given Congress the power to regulate your every decision that impacted commerce. They didn’t. I can read the Commerce clause. It isn’t hard to understand. The Indian Tribes, the foreign powers, and the states. Are you, the individual, ANY of those things? What about the private insurance company? NO. You are not, and they are not.

    We need to continue this fight for the next 50 years. THe fight to reduce the power of the commerce clause and the way it’s being interpreted because it’s just wrong.

  • Holy crap this was awesome. Stay after em Mark.

  • Davidkiser21

    Weinner brains should be arrested and tried for sedition.

  • Publius

    Am I the only one in shock?

    Whiner is arguing the federal government can force people not to be a financial burden on society?? Force them to buy insurance so they don’t end up in public emergency room with no purchasing power, a financial burden on the rest of us??


    Then the government can also force them to do things so they don’t end up on food stamps? On welfare? In public housing? etc., so they don’t end up a financial burden on the rest of us?