Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

QUESTION: Is the Madate to Purchase Insurance the ONLY Unconstitutional Provision of the Bill?
March 22, 2010

Posted on 03/22/2010 4:02:09 PM PDT by MrChips

I am curious about the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Bill. We all know that there will be court challenges to the provision requiring Americans to purchase insurance. But, are there other parts of the Bill which violate the Constitution and could be challenged in court?


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; History; Society
KEYWORDS: constitution; health

1 posted on 03/22/2010 4:02:09 PM PDT by MrChips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Considering the federal government has no enumerated power to meddle in health care at the individual level, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Not that that argument has gotten any traction in decades.


2 posted on 03/22/2010 4:04:29 PM PDT by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Considering the federal government has no enumerated power to meddle in health care at the individual level, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Not that that argument has gotten any traction in decades.


3 posted on 03/22/2010 4:05:06 PM PDT by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

This might help you out:

http://www.resistnet.com/video/know-the-truth-about-the-1


4 posted on 03/22/2010 4:05:09 PM PDT by EBH (There is a bell ringing. Is it for Freedom or a Death Knell?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Thanks


5 posted on 03/22/2010 4:06:08 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

The one part forcing people to buy insurance should be enough. It would be nice if they find more sections and push for a fasttrack to SCOTUS to gut this thing.


6 posted on 03/22/2010 4:06:49 PM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I have a problem with the one fining employers if any of their employees goes out and buys private insurance. I don’t see how you can hold someone liable for another person’s conduct, especially where I bet the employer does not have the ability to tell the employee not to do it.


7 posted on 03/22/2010 4:08:52 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I think this argument will get shot down. The gov’t mandates we buy a retirement and disability program called Social Security. Oh, I forgot, federal workers are exempt.


8 posted on 03/22/2010 4:08:52 PM PDT by Nachoman (Think of life as an adventure you don't survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

You cannot tax people solely as a means of controlling conduct that the government cannot otherwise reach through the commerce clause or any other constitutional provision.

I think there is definitely something to be said as well for violation of privacy rights and equal protection clause. After all, Amish and the idiots in Washington are also exempt from the bill.


9 posted on 03/22/2010 4:11:17 PM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachoman
The gov’t mandates we buy a retirement and disability program called Social Security.

Actually, the government mandates that we pay a Social Security Tax. The myth that it's a trust fund, insurance, or any other rainy day savings can be popped by looking back at the Court rulings on the Railroad Retirement Act. FDR sold Social Security as an insurance to the public, then argued to the courts that it was nothing but a tax in order to maintain its "constitutionality."
10 posted on 03/22/2010 4:15:50 PM PDT by Renderofveils (My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. - Nabokov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
The one part forcing people to buy insurance should be enough.

Absolutely.

If not, then basically the Constitution puts no limits to federal power, which is certainly not true.

11 posted on 03/22/2010 4:15:51 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

It’s Unconstitutional due to Article 1 Section 8 not specifically granting Congress the power to regulate health care. Therefore this is a power reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment. The people are not bound to comply with an unconstitutional act of Congress.


12 posted on 03/22/2010 4:15:53 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
The mandate is one. The fact that the IRS is now going to be used outside of it's original power could be another one. Sharing of income and other personal data is one. Regulating Doctors and health care providers to the point that hey are pseudo federal employees that did not get anything from the federal government is basically stealing intellectual property or indentured servitude. Even the idea of taxing for the purpose of providing a service without providing that service for a number of years is probably a point that could be argued.
This bill will not be in force for quite a while to come. It is my belief that Obama knows it has a high possibility of being declared unconstitutional and that was why he dressed down the Supreme Court Justices during the State of the Union. This way he can say that the Court robbed the left of health care. It is a way to save his own elected skin in 2012 even though he will have shot all the other democrats in the back
13 posted on 03/22/2010 4:17:12 PM PDT by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

SEE IF YOU CAN FIND ANYTHING ABOUT RUNNING THE U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE ABOVE POWERS OF THE CONGRESS.


14 posted on 03/22/2010 4:18:35 PM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
My guess is that almost all of it is unconstitutional. But I only looked at one page. That page says effectively that emergency rooms have to provide "interpreters" and "translation services." There is no way any Constitutional provision can allow Congress to force me or my business to accommodate people who do not speak my language. We would apparently need a Constitutional Amendment to force Governments to conduct their business exclusively in English, but it's okay to pass a law demanding that private businesses be able to conduct business in the language of any non-English speaking customer who knocks on their door. I don't think so.

ML/NJ

15 posted on 03/22/2010 4:19:28 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Does it matter any more what is Constitutional? Is 90% of the FedGov constitutional?

All tax and spending bills must originate in the House.

right?


16 posted on 03/22/2010 4:19:55 PM PDT by GeronL (All politicians are POS. Some are just piled higher and smell worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wooly

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/22/conservative-leaders-against-t


17 posted on 03/22/2010 4:22:13 PM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wooly

Bingo! Many great points.

This one really stuck out and I thought so:

“Regulating Doctors and health care providers to the point that hey are pseudo federal employees that did not get anything from the federal government is basically stealing intellectual property or indentured servitude.”

Did Obama and the Dems reinstitute slavery for doctors or just serfdom?

Great post. Everyone should read it. Excellent.


18 posted on 03/22/2010 4:22:25 PM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

Nowhere.


19 posted on 03/22/2010 4:23:11 PM PDT by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

It is now time for all of us to mandate that the U.S. Congress
follow the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Every bill, every action by these socialist radicals needs to be scrutinized very carefully. We must continue to demand that
illegals (who by the way broke the law to get here) are denied citizenship.


20 posted on 03/22/2010 4:25:12 PM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Having a bureaucratic entity decide on what is the appropriate health procedures for me at any point in my life is a violation of my Civil Rights, and the right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.
21 posted on 03/22/2010 4:25:43 PM PDT by HardStarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

As such, In my humble opinion, the entire bill must be scrapped.


22 posted on 03/22/2010 4:26:13 PM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing
I don’t see how you can hold someone liable for another person’s conduct

They've been doing this for years. If a company pays me to do a job, and I do not properly pay my employment tax (SSI &c.), the company is liable. (This is one of the things that guy who flew a plane into a Texas IRS Office was mad about.)

ML/NJ

23 posted on 03/22/2010 4:26:52 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
The one I have a problem with is: All the Kickback and payoff/earmarks. Something for some, but not for all.

That is discrimmination.

24 posted on 03/22/2010 4:31:13 PM PDT by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

“As such, In my humble opinion, the entire bill must be scrapped.”

As a start.


25 posted on 03/22/2010 4:32:53 PM PDT by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

See this discussion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/03/19/DI2010031902926.html


26 posted on 03/22/2010 4:33:39 PM PDT by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

The health takeover bill will regulate insurance companies as public utilities, without allowing them to earn “reasonable” rates of return on invested capital. In this respect, the bill violates well-establised precedent that guarantees the utilities a constitutionally protected status for their rates of return. This unconstitutional characteristic of the health takeover legislation has been exhaustively analyzed by 0bama’s former collegue at the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein. See:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php


27 posted on 03/22/2010 4:35:32 PM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
You have go to think endgame. These guys are smart and constantly outwit the Republicans. They know the mandate is unconstitutional. They don't care. They know healthy people will pay the fine which is around 1/10th the cost of buying a health insurance policy and bankrupt the system. They want people to get used to it and have it run out of money.

Think VAT. That is what they want. That is the holy grail of liberal socialist progressives. They think they can get it through to fund health-care when it, inevitably, founders. And after that there will be no constraints whatsoever on the size and growth of government. If Obama pulls that off the socialists will be lighting candles and praying in front of his picture for a thousand years.

28 posted on 03/22/2010 4:40:51 PM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
are there other parts of the Bill which violate the Constitution and could be challenged in court?

You mean the abolishment of your 4th Amendment right restraint on government to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . ?

Apparently, the "fix" allows IRS agents to monitor your bank accounts and seize funds to pay fines.

But, of course, the 4th Amendment has already been tossed aside by the Patriot Act. But . . . you do feel safer don't you?

How about that under Article I, Section 7 that "[a]ll bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives . . . "?

The U.S. Constitution has been "deemed" irrelevant for quite some time. Once upon a time, only Congress could declare war, only Congress could coin money and regulate the value thereof and Congress could only enact legislation as defined in Article I, Section 8.

The only relevance the Constitution has to Congress critters is around election time or in getting a TV soundbite. Then, lip-service is given to the rulebook.

29 posted on 03/22/2010 4:42:55 PM PDT by SlaveNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachoman

I’m not a lawyer but am not sure this is the same thing. The RATS insist that the feds can force us to buy insurance pursuant to the commerce clause, which allows the feds to REGULATE interstate commerce. I would argue that the right to regulate interstate commerce is not the same as the right to COMPEL interstate commerce by forcing citizens to engage in transactions with PRIVATE players (i.e. insurance companies).

Medicare and Social security are taxes. You have to pay them only if you have wages. It’s a govt program so I dont know whether the commerce clause governs.

Maybe a lawyer could pipe up and give a more authoritative explanation.


30 posted on 03/22/2010 4:44:21 PM PDT by freespirited (We're not the Party of No. We're the Party of HELL NO!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Doctors might have a class action restraint of trade legal challenge.


31 posted on 03/22/2010 4:44:42 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlaveNoMore

Thank you.


32 posted on 03/22/2010 4:46:20 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wooly

Well, it remains to be seen how long it takes people to sue the government on each of these grounds. Let us hope that no conservatives retire from the Court for awhile.


33 posted on 03/22/2010 4:51:01 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

The short answer is no.

Health care is not an enumerated power of the federal government under the constitution.

The problem is we do not, at present, have a functioning government to enforce the constitution.

It is time to quit being politically correct and start being politically honest.

If the american public will not confront the reality of the grievous error of last November, then liberty dies.

If we are truly a free people rather than european-style subjects of our government masters, we will rise up to renounce the progressive movement.

We will know one way or another before sunrise on November 3, 2010.


34 posted on 03/22/2010 4:51:58 PM PDT by LoneStarC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

The bill itself is not constitutional.

The government can not own or operate any companies.


35 posted on 03/22/2010 4:56:25 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Can I read this without signing up?


36 posted on 03/22/2010 5:01:32 PM PDT by TJC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Not only that but I believe that exempting themselves as well as anyone that works for them should also be unconstitutional! A law should include all....

I just feel that it should be anyway!


37 posted on 03/22/2010 5:03:37 PM PDT by jcsjcm (American Patriot - follow the Constitution and in God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

Tell that to GM


38 posted on 03/22/2010 5:05:46 PM PDT by Sunbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I don’t think it is. From what I’ve read the unequal treatment of people who live in different states violates the equal protection clause.


39 posted on 03/22/2010 5:35:38 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TJC

It’s a video? No need to sign up for anything?

You could try this page.
http://www.wtam.com/pages/trivpage.html

Video is about half way down too.


40 posted on 03/22/2010 5:40:14 PM PDT by EBH (There is a bell ringing. Is it for Freedom or a Death Knell?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
From what I’ve read the unequal treatment of people who live in different states violates the equal protection clause.

I don't see how having different laws for Federal employess and congressmen versus the common people doesn't violate equal protection.

If we're forced to buy social security and forced to buy government healthcare, they should have to buy it as well. Having a tier of laws for the rulers and a tier of laws for the ruled must be unconstitutional.

41 posted on 03/22/2010 5:41:10 PM PDT by EvilOverlord (Socialism makes workers into slaves and couch potatoes into kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Maybe not. But if the court strikes down that mandate then the bill is pretty much gutted.


42 posted on 03/22/2010 5:44:24 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Providing federal money for Medicaid coverage in Nebraska only violates equal protection. So does the Cadillac coverage penalty exemption for union members, as does the South Florida exemption for the phasing out of Medicare Advantage.

The part of the bill which states that no future Congress can change it is also unconstitutional. And most importantly, insurance companies do not operate across state lines, but work exclusively within a state. Therefore, they are not subject to the Commerce Clause (Article I, Sec. 8). Thus, the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate them.

43 posted on 03/22/2010 6:11:54 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Replied to the wrong post....


44 posted on 03/22/2010 6:17:38 PM PDT by TJC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson