Skip to comments.List of Constitutional Violations in Healthcare bill
Posted on 03/22/2010 6:04:02 PM PDT by JimWayne
Article 1, Section 7 - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
First Amendment (Establishment Clause) and Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) - [Quote: "Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds"]: Although the courts allowed the Amish not to pay Social Security tax, this bill would be different if it exempts the Amish and Muslims from participating in the system while forcing the Catholics to participate in it.
Article 1, sections 1 and 8 (Powers of the Congress) and Article 5 (Procedure to Amend the Constitution) - [Quote: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."] - The quoted text effectively amends the Constitution and abridges the law-making authority of Congress. This has been done without two-thirds majority.
Article 1, Section 8 (Commerce Clause) - The commerce clause grants rights to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce (health insurance is not interstate commerce since you cannot buy it across state lines). Secondly, not buying insurance is not commerce.
Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Fifth Amendment - nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Tenth Amendment - 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.
Good thread to start....thanks !
Wonderful list. Thank you. But how are you seeing the application of the fifth amendment?
Our providers won’t have to worry about handing out all that privacy information any more.
I believe the bill DID originate in the House. Wasn’t it originally an unrelated bill which was gutted, then used as a vehicle for the legislation, and then sent back to the House for passage?
What I want to know is what court cases are being filed... because that’s where it’s at, if something is Unconstitutional... doncha know...
Under the Federalist system our Founding Fathers gave us, Congress had very few powers (Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution), everything else goes to the State (10th Amendment).
Article 1 section 8 does not give Congress the power to get involved in insurance or a doctor's treatment to his patients. This is clearly a State issue.
I went through the article at that link. I don't think they did a good job of exempting themselves! An "intent" to define what a staffer means is not enough. They should have put it in writing or else it won't hold up in court.
Do you know which laws forbid quid pro quo for votes?
Why dont we just throw the whole constitution at them and let them try and explain which article they didnt violate?
They cannot take personal property without reasonable compensation. At the time of taking my money, if I have not been given anything in return except an empty promise that they will help me when I fall ill, it is not just compensation.
I wonder about the law that pre-existing conditions have to be covered. I know there are strictly defined anti-discrimination laws, but I don’t think a protected group would include people with pre-existing conditions. Can the federal (or state for that matter) government force a business to sell something to someone if by selling it, the business incurs a loss?
Is there any part of this bill that limits the amount of the premium insurance companies charge to cover pre-existing conditions? If not, than what’s to prevent companies from charging $100,000/year in premiums to cover people like this or what actuaries would deem would be a sufficient amount to cover this group?
Geraldo won’t understand this.
Exempting Congresscritters and even some of their staffers violates the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV.
Thanks for the list. It’s great.
Now, comrades.. Sorry, but I cannot resist... What oath of office do the members of Congress take again? something about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution or did they change that to the Communist Manifesto with one of those underhanded amendments? Those sneaky devils.
13th Amendment - Involuntary Servitude.
No, this is NOT like the income tax, social security and all the other federal "mandates" - because THEY all justify themselves by claiming to take a portion of your voluntary activity.
This is not a trivial distinction - it is THE fundamental way the Federal government has claimed the legal power to insert itself into people's personal lives.
In contrast, this healthcare bill taxes you - for the very first time in 223 years of American Constitutional history - on the basis of your EXISTENCE, not your activity.
That's involuntary servitude, period.
Doesn’t mean squat to these pigs.
Why dont we just throw the whole constitution at them and let them try and explain which article they didnt violate?
I don't know if that technique works with the Supreme Court... LOL ...
Southerners said the same thing about their slaves.
There’s something else too...
The gov’t will want to “control” costs so now they will attempt to tell you what is healthy and what is not, what to eat, what to do.
This is a violation of our privacy.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The penalties are excessive because the requirement is excess.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Taken with the 10th it Constitutionally limits the interstate commerce clause to enumerated powers not any general welfare canard.
Does it exempt Muslims?
It does not name any religion but allows people to opt out on the basis of religious beliefs. Islam is against gambling and if you personally knew any Muslims, you would know how much angst they go through when it comes to auto insurance. There are some Sharia Compliant insurance companies which do some juggling around of the money to technically avoid the Islamic definition of gambling.
So, yes, Muslims would fall in that category.
Then it’s time to form a new Christian sect which abhors gambling.
When has the SC cared anything about the constitution? I have yet to find that they can read.
We get to see the bill for 72 hours now right?
Private property can only be taken for public use. Public use is NOT the same thing as public purpose (in other words, anything a government official wants to do). Public use means for things like schools, roads, the military, etc., not handouts or insurance for private parties (aka other citizens).
The income tax amendment gives the government the right to pretty much confiscate as much of our income as they wish. There’s no limit. The 16th Amendment allows private property (income) to be taken, but it doesn’t override the requirement that property can only be taken for a public use.
I think that’s why Justice Thomas was so concerned about the definition of “public use” in the Kelo dissent. If public use is distorted to mean doing anything a politician wants to do, as in “public purpose” then there is nothing that government can’t do.
As Mark Levin likes to ask, where does government power stop? Democrats should be asked, what can government NOT do? Are there any restraints left, or can a political majority literally implement anything it pleases with or without public support?
Next they'll say it's unsafe to keep a gun in your house.
Agree with you on this but the mandate to buy health insurance is not a tax. And if I then had to pay a penalty, confiscating my money would not be the same as taking it for public use. It would be unreasonable seizure.
thanks, I was looking for this kind of info last night..
PRINTED TO HAND OUT.
Does each violation need to be fought separately, or is there some collective weight that has greater impact?
“As Mark Levin likes to ask, where does government power stop? Democrats should be asked, what can government NOT do? Are there any restraints left, or can a political majority literally implement anything it pleases with or without public support?”
The Democrat answer is NO! Government power is unlimited.
Question: the Equal Protection Clause refers only to States, does it not? My understanding is that it does not refer to the federal govt, actually being the only amendment that prescribes State govt behavior.
I 2nd that. We need to know what laws this takeover violates. The better informed we are, the better.
Send me $100 annually and u will receive a certified card as a member in good standing upon payment.....
PS...That's a $100 less then the “Capitalist Pig Church” charges!!
My point was that they can take your income, but they can only use it for public use. They cannot constitutionally redistribute wealth to private parties.
Social security was deemed an income tax, so the SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional. But social security is clearly unconstitutional in that giving checks to people is not a public use. A social security check is not the same thing as a road, a school, or paying someone for services rendered. Again, if public use is distorted to mean public purpose, then government can literally take ALL of your income and hand it out any way they deem fit.
I do understand your point that this is a mandate to buy something which is not the same thing as an income tax. Yeah, that’s unconstitutional, too. Yet if we allow them to also distort public use, then a single payer system would be entirely constitutional. They could simply tax everyone (on a progressive scale, of course) and mandate single-payer health care. Social security is on a smaller scale, but the constitutional distortion that permits it would also permit single payer health care, because they have the right to take income in any amount and use it for anything that’s a public “purpose.”
I would like to know the meaning and standard usage of the word “bill” as was current in common law at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
Could a document that can not be read aloud in a normal cadence in under, say three hours, by considered a “bill”?
That is — could a shelf of volumes of 200 page books ever be considered a bill?
Looks like the slaves got even, with a little help from Marx and Engles.
This will not end well.
I noticed the Florida's attorney General Bill McCollum said:
"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."
In a way it's like a poll tax. Especially if you can be jailed for non-compliance, and thus deprived of you vote.
Social Security started with the fable that your money was going to a dedicated retirement account. That was a lie. The money went into the General Fund. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that FICA was an ordinary tax. You have no particular claim on the money that has been taxed from you. I expect the "insurance" will morph in a similar fashion.
Ah, there’s one exception. Government can’t restrict someone’s right to an abortion. Other than that, pretty much everything is OK for the leftists.
For us folks out here that are law illiterate, do all these legal challenges I’m hearing about today give us hope? Can this thing be killed legally? Please God, let this be true.
Just claim to be a Baptist. That should cover drinking, dancing, gambling, swearing and smoking.