Skip to comments.QUESTION: Is the Madate to Purchase Insurance the ONLY Unconstitutional Provision of the Bill?
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?
As such, In my humble opinion, the entire bill must be scrapped.
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.)
That is discrimmination.
“As such, In my humble opinion, the entire bill must be scrapped.”
As a start.
See this discussion:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Doctors might have a class action restraint of trade legal challenge.
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.
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.
The bill itself is not constitutional.
The government can not own or operate any companies.
Can I read this without signing up?
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!
Tell that to GM
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.
It’s a video? No need to sign up for anything?
You could try this page.
Video is about half way down too.
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.