Posted on 01/08/2010 10:26:15 AM PST by yoe
Congress lacks the authority to force healthcare coverage on people and businesses
The current healthcare bills pending in the Senate and the House are unconstitutional, because Congress lacks the authority to mandate insurance coverage for individuals or private businesses. If a bill passes that mandates individual coverage or requires private employers to provide coverage, Liberty Counsel will file suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Liberty University, the largest and fastest-growing Christian university in the world, with over 50,000 students, will be one of the plaintiffs in such a suit. Other plaintiffs include individuals, private nonprofit and for-profit businesses and organizations, and religious institutions.
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: “Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. Congress clearly lacks the constitutional authority to force individuals to have, or private businesses to provide, health insurance. Congress’s attempt to force health insurance coverage on the nation is a stunning example of what Congress cannot do.”
The Taxing and Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause are the two primary provisions of the Constitution that enable Congress to act. The healthcare bills do not fall under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Moreover, unlike some other laws Congress passes which impose requirements on states that accept federal funds, the healthcare bills impose requirements on individuals and private employers who refuse to accept the government mandate.
In order to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the activity must affect interstate commerce. Individual decisions about health insurance do not, in most cases, affect interstate commerce. Yet, the proposed bills force coverage on individuals and private employers, no matter how far removed their activities are from interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has cut back on Congress’s authority to regulate private or local matters of concern.
“If Congress had the power to force each person to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be meaningless. No matter the desires of some elected officials, there are some things Congress cannot do. No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions. The threat to liberty posed by the healthcare bills goes beyond healthcare. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will vanish. The healthcare bills are patently unconstitutional.”
I rec’d a letter today from Ohio’s AG, I called his office regarding the same. He basically said he is staying in touch with other AG’s and that I should contact my Senators and Congressmen.
so, if it’s unconstitutional, is there something that can be done, pre-emptively (sp) to stop this thing in its tracks or make it DOA?
It can’t be directly attacked as unconstitutional till it becomes law. Courts generally don’t deal with hypothetical harms. Immediately upon becoming law, however, all bets are off.
Having said that, there is an indirect impact of threatened litigation, as the legislators have to account for it as part of their political calculus. In short, it could make some bolder to play to their base, thinking they may not have to deal with the actual consequences of the bill. Others may become more timid, realizing they are spending all their political capital on a dead albatross. So the net effect of these legal threats is somewhat unpredictable. We shall see.
The real question is whether or not the courts will stop this thing. It is very apparent that it is illegal; however, I do not trust the court system to do the right thing in this situation. It is my hope and prayer that they exercise their power, or that will effectively make the third branch impotent.
I have been watching the news and the challenges to the bill based on Nelson’s sweetheart deal are a loser. The whole thing is for naught. Nelson has basically said he will support the bill without the candy, so guess what the final bill will be without it. This individual mandate which is the only thing holding it together is a bit more troublesome. A Federal judge somewhere will strike it down and it will be months or years before it works it’s way up the SCOTUS.
Remember when everyone said "Campaign Finance Reform" was Unconstitutional? Clueless George said it was unconstitutional, but signed it anyway, now it is the Law of the Land.
These Elitists infect both parties, and are determined to have "One World Order."
In order to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the activity must affect interstate commerce. Individual decisions about health insurance do not, in most cases, affect interstate commerce.
While this is true so long as health care is a private contract between free individuals; the transformation of health care into a federal requirement (if allowed to stand), changes everything.
The Dems seem to think that the commerce clause permits Congress to mandate that an individual engage in interstate commerce.
As far as I know, no state or federal government has tried to enact a law which can imprison a citizen for failing to enter into a private contract.
I can easily see the Court overturning the private mandate and possibly the state mandates, rendering the plan unworkable.
This may still favor the left since the taxes can probably still be collected. We could end up with a scenario whereby the government collects the taxes and never delivers the product.
And don't forget, health insurance companies are prohibited from competing across state lines. So how could health insurance be considered interstate commerce in the first place?
Other plaintiffs include individuals, private nonprofit and for-profit businesses and organizations, and religious institutions.
I have been asking questions about this preemption since the serious drive began to federalize private health behavior.
The legal problems are formidable, and the best Constitutional Legal minds must be brought to bear to deal with the problem on behalf of the plaintiffs, us the taxpaying slaves. It's do or die time.
If 100,000 commited conservatives nationwide, each pledged $10 a month to fund the suit no matter how long it takes, I assume it could afford the top two legal minds available.
I am hopeful that additional funding is available from other conservative foundations, as well as volunteer pro bono additional legal help.
Count me in.
Just tell me who are the lead counsels and where do I send the check?
$1,000,000 a month should buy a lot of legal horsepower.
In the meantime, many educational legal questions should be answered in the aid of driving a wooden stake through the heart of any future attempts at "totalitarianism via 'democracy'".
Far as I know, the Constitution is still not a 'suicide pact.'
Who has standing?
Can the Feds use taxpayer money to fund a court case attacking the taxpayers themselves?
Must the suit be consolidated into one or should it be brought separately in each state?
Where should the suits be filed?
Is a stay of execution via the Supreme Court an option, once the law is finalized?
Once the members of both houses of Congress are no longer in Congress (resigned) are they subject to individual suits for incompetence, criminal behavior, abuse of power and perjury (they lied each time they took the oath of office, respecting the support of the Constitution)?
It is never too soon to start; putting all these criminals on notice is a great pre-emptive move!
Not necessarily.
Issues of profound and immediate import to every tax-paying citizen man, woman and child have a way of being expedited, given counsel who actually know what they are doing.
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.