'Purge Perriello' Campaign Kicks Off

A few dozen protestors kicked off the 'Purge Perriello' campaign Friday morning.

[Saddened Citizen]

I really hate it when people misuse "unconstitutional." Unconstitutional means it specifically violates something in the constitution. If something is not in the constitution, laws about it are not unconstitutional. The majority of laws are about things that aren't in the constitution. People are so stupid sometimes. And what is Anti-American about believing that all of your fellow citizens are entitled to adequate healthcare? Shame on you people. You know what? I don't believe in war, and my tax dollars pay for that too, but you don't see me being a jerk to soldiers.

[Interesting]

"Lawrence Verga, who hopes to run against Perriello, stated,“There is no place in the constitution, certainly no place that Congressman Perriello has been able to find when questioned where the government can make you pay for a consumer commodity like healthcare.”"

Does that mean all our state legislators that support the requirement to purchase automobile insurance have violated the constitution too? How about motorcycle helmet laws? Or federal laws requiring child seats in cars? or..........

[constitutionalis t]

Only the Supreme Court can declare a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. It is the responsibility of those writing our laws to insure they can pass muster of the Court. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail.
In a broad sense, H.R. 3962 could be declared unconstitutional in violation of the Tenth Amendment which states, "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."
The institution of the "public option", Section 321, page 211 will draw the federal government into direct competition with private insurance companies. In Section 322,it states that,"The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option." This could be contrued as government price fixing in order to put local insurance companies out of business. The federal government has now fully entered the realm of interstate commerce encompassing one sixth of the nation's economy. The problem lies in that the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which establishes the powers of Congress, "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Congress will now be in a business as a competitor when before they were only had regulatory powers. This could be seen as a conflict of interest.
Many people have used the "post office" analogy. The question is, "is the post office a government agency or is it a business?" It was provided for in the Constsitution in Article I, Section 8 and fully established in the US Code, Title 39, Part I, Chapter 1. By law, the USPS must operate revenue-neutral. Yet the USPS has shown an annual profit of $1 billion for each of the last five years. They advertise. They are in limited competition with UPS, Fed-Ex, etc. The next question will be, "Is the public option an agency or a business?" The reason the post office analogy doesn't work is that in order for to two to be considered on equal ground, public health care would have to become an Amendment to the Constitution which would require ratification by the States. Since the States are already running huge deficits and being mandated to cover some of the costs of H.R. 3962, unless they "opt out", there is no chance the Amendment would be ratified.
The biggest argument as to the constitutionality of the Bill is whether Congress has the power to require individuals to purchase insurance. There is no national precedent for this. The opposing argument is that states require drivers carry auto insurance. THERE is the question that falls back to the Tenth Amendment. States have to power to do it, the Congress of the United States does not.
There is a federal law about children in carseats, known as Anton's Law. It sets the minimun guidelines for child restraint in motor vehicles. Most state laws far exceed these guidelines and are the prevailing laws in each state. No one has ever been prosecuted under the federal law, only the states laws. Motorcycle helmet laws are also the realm of the States.

[Dark Side]

Interesting wrote:

"Lawrence Verga, who hopes to run against Perriello, stated,“There is no place in the constitution, certainly no place that Congressman Perriello has been able to find when questioned where the government can make you pay for a consumer commodity like healthcare.”"
Does that mean all our state legislators that support the requirement to purchase automobile insurance have violated the constitution too? How about motorcycle helmet laws? Or federal laws requiring child seats in cars? or..........

But a citizen does not have to own a car, ride a motorcycle or have children. But you DO have to have health insurance because of this bill!!! Where does the government have the right to tell a citizen to purchase something they do not want to by?

[Goober]

They aint no aireoplanes in the constitution! Flyin' must be unconstitutional! Let's get 'em!

[I Left Cville Socialism]

Interesting wrote:

Does that mean all our state legislators that support the requirement to purchase automobile insurance have violated the constitution too? How about motorcycle helmet laws? Or federal laws requiring child seats in cars..........

No, because they aren't insisting that you buy *their* auto insurance or baby seats. That's what makes this different.

[AccountabilityPl ease]

It really doesn't matter how many townhalls this man has, or how many come out to support or protest him. Many have now written him off, and will actively seek his removal come November. He has done more to energize the Republican party in the 5th District than anyone can ever imagine. I will no longer write letters, emails or encourage anyone else to do so. Regardless of what he wants you to believe concerning his "outreach" to constituents, they DO fall of deaf ears. Tom Perriello is an elitist, know-it-all young naif liberal who thinks he knows better than anyone else. Therefore, we must be patient--until November 2, 2010. Then he will join the ranks of the millions of unemployed the Democratic party has seem to have forgotten.

[Ross]

Saddened Citizen wrote:

I really hate it when people misuse "unconstitutional." Unconstitutional means it specifically violates something in the constitution. If something is not in the constitution, laws about it are not unconstitutional.

Read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:“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.”

The Tenth Amendment states that states retain those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. This system is a check on the power of government. Over the years, Congress has usurped this power through the interstate commerce clause, but in most cases, that is a stretch. Healthcare is just one more unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Your conclusion, if it is not specifically stated in the Constitution then the federal government gets the power, is wrong. If a power is not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution then that authority belongs to the state.

You will never hear this argument from the leftist “living Constitution” crowd. They want the right to change the Constitution or to usurp power from the states when it fits their political beliefs.

[cbunny]

Saddened Citizen wrote:

I really hate it when people misuse "unconstitutional." Unconstitutional means it specifically violates something in the constitution. If something is not in the constitution, laws about it are not unconstitutional. The majority of laws are about things that aren't in the constitution. People are so stupid sometimes. And what is Anti-American about believing that all of your fellow citizens are entitled to adequate healthcare? Shame on you people. You know what? I don't believe in war, and my tax dollars pay for that too, but you don't see me being a jerk to soldiers.

Do you believe in working your behind off and then having to pay for healthcare for some lazy bum who won't go out and get a job?!?!?!!!! That's what they're goint to do to pay for this disaster -- tax the insurance coverage that hard-working Americans have!!!

[Ross]

Oh, one other thing. When Perriello took office, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Yet, he voted for this bill that is in clear violation of the Constitution. Is Perriello one of the liberal “living Constitution” crowd or is he just ignorant of what the Constitution clearly states? You draw your own conclusion.

[cbunny]

Ross wrote:

Oh, one other thing. When Perriello took office, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Yet, he voted for this bill that is in clear violation of the Constitution. Is Perriello one of the liberal “living Constitution” crowd or is he just ignorant of what the Constitution clearly states? You draw your own conclusion.

He even initially sait he WOULDN'T vote for it, then decided to turn around and kiss Obma's @$$!!

[Crozethome]

I suppose some of you folks that "love" the Constitution also want to do away with income tax, since its not specifically enumerated. You want to argue this stuff, you better do your homework. The commerce power permits regulation of activities that, standing alone, might not be permissible but which are subject to regulation because their regulation is necessary and proper to the accomplishment of a valid larger regulatory scheme. So the authority to regulate insurance in its various forms, such as Medicare, Medicaid and the proposed legislation have already been set forth under the commerce clause. Congressman Periello has committed no constitutional offense in supporting the bill. Shame on any of you who argue he did, not for disagreeing with his decision, but for adding your lack of knowledge to a complicated issue

[Dave]

Poor Periello, kid just can't think for himself. Leading by consensus is not.

[Dark Side]

Crozethome wrote:

I suppose some of you folks that "love" the Constitution also want to do away with income tax, since its not specifically enumerated. You want to argue this stuff, you better do your homework. The commerce power permits regulation of activities that, standing alone, might not be permissible but which are subject to regulation because their regulation is necessary and proper to the accomplishment of a valid larger regulatory scheme. So the authority to regulate insurance in its various forms, such as Medicare, Medicaid and the proposed legislation have already been set forth under the commerce clause. Congressman Periello has committed no constitutional offense in supporting the bill. Shame on any of you who argue he did, not for disagreeing with his decision, but for adding your lack of knowledge to a complicated issue

The commerce clause is so over used and stretched and twisted to fit whatever they say "must be done." It does not give them the right to force a citizen to purchase something they do not want to. They over step their power again. Medicare is paid into over years for use in old age. Medicaid is used to assist those in need and should have a set amount of time put upon those on the program. Please go back to ACORN and tell your employer the American people do not want this. We need a reform that is going to give power to the patients not force them to ask the government for permission for health care.

[Adam]

Ross wrote:

Oh, one other thing. When Perriello took office, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Yet, he voted for this bill that is in clear violation of the Constitution. Is Perriello one of the liberal “living Constitution” crowd or is he just ignorant of what the Constitution clearly states? You draw your own conclusion.

I'm just curious. All of you attacking Periello because you believe his vote for this bill is "unconstitutional," are you also planning to attack the couple of hundred other Representatvies who also voted for this bill with equal venom, or are you just singling him out for special treatment? Or is it because he is the new kid, and it easier to gang up on him? I have yet to see a mention of Scott, Connally, or Moran, or for that matter, Mollohan or Rahall.

[Dark Side]

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just curious. All of you attacking Periello because you believe his vote for this bill is "unconstitutional," are you also planning to attack the couple of hundred other Representatvies who also voted for this bill with equal venom, or are you just singling him out for special treatment? Or is it because he is the new kid, and it easier to gang up on him? I have yet to see a mention of Scott, Connally, or Moran, or for that matter, Mollohan or Rahall.

Because he represents my district and myself. The others do not represtent me he does. And he is not doing his job or keeping his word that he gave us at the town hall meetings. His credibility is ruined and I do not support him. I will be campaigning next year so he does not keep his seat.

[hmna]

@CrozetHome, you are incorrect on taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically enumerates an income tax. In fact, prior to the 16th Amendment, attempts to impose an income tax were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

[lord]

I am beginning to think this teabagger crap is just the recycling of the Silent Majority, which was neither. Science tells us extinctions don't happen overnight, I for one am at least glad to see Foghorn Leghorn go the way of the DoDo.

[Ross]

lord wrote:

... I for one am at least glad to see Foghorn Leghorn go the way of the DoDo.

It's nice to see you still watch cartoons. But, do you understand them?

[Simon]

Dark Side wrote:

<quoted text>
The commerce clause is so over used and stretched and twisted to fit whatever they say "must be done." It does not give them the right to force a citizen to purchase something they do not want to. They over step their power again. Medicare is paid into over years for use in old age. Medicaid is used to assist those in need and should have a set amount of time put upon those on the program. Please go back to ACORN and tell your employer the American people do not want this. We need a reform that is going to give power to the patients not force them to ask the government for permission for health care.

So I guess it is bad to be unconstitutional, but you just don't like the commerce clause so they should ignore it? I think that Congress has the power to regulate commerce is pretty specific here, but if you dont like it, I guess Perriello voting to regulate commerce shoule be unconstitutional. Lets get out the pitchforks and torches!