Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhohealthcare; healthcare; lping; obama; obamacare; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
If you have read the bill and know of other violations, please add to the list.
1 posted on 03/22/2010 6:04:03 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JimWayne; Travis McGee

Good thread to start....thanks !


2 posted on 03/22/2010 6:07:19 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
Check this out: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2477323/posts

XIV Amendment?

3 posted on 03/22/2010 6:07:39 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Wonderful list. Thank you. But how are you seeing the application of the fifth amendment?


4 posted on 03/22/2010 6:08:03 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Our providers won’t have to worry about handing out all that privacy information any more.


5 posted on 03/22/2010 6:08:39 PM PDT by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has it limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Mark


6 posted on 03/22/2010 6:10:01 PM PDT by Czar (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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?


7 posted on 03/22/2010 6:11:08 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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...


8 posted on 03/22/2010 6:11:08 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
To me it is a matter of US Constitution Section 8 (Powers of Congress). Anything not given to Congress as a power The 10th Amendment says it goes to the State .

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.

9 posted on 03/22/2010 6:11:19 PM PDT by GregoTX (I am the resistance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

9th Amendment.


10 posted on 03/22/2010 6:11:31 PM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

bookmark


11 posted on 03/22/2010 6:13:06 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: Michael Barnes
Check this out: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2477323/posts XIV Amendment?

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?

12 posted on 03/22/2010 6:14:55 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne; AliVeritas; holdonnow

FYI


13 posted on 03/22/2010 6:15:04 PM PDT by mojo114 (Forward to November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Why dont we just throw the whole constitution at them and let them try and explain which article they didnt violate?


14 posted on 03/22/2010 6:17:12 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

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.


15 posted on 03/22/2010 6:19:29 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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?


16 posted on 03/22/2010 6:19:43 PM PDT by randita (Sarah Palin has the same computer that I have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Geraldo won’t understand this.


17 posted on 03/22/2010 6:19:51 PM PDT by optiguy (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.----- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Exempting Congresscritters and even some of their staffers violates the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV.


18 posted on 03/22/2010 6:19:53 PM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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.


19 posted on 03/22/2010 6:25:34 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
If you have read the bill and know of other violations, please add to the list.

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.

20 posted on 03/22/2010 6:28:01 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Doesn’t mean squat to these pigs.


21 posted on 03/22/2010 6:28:12 PM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crz; JimWayne
You were saying ...

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 ...

22 posted on 03/22/2010 6:29:19 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Southerners said the same thing about their slaves.


23 posted on 03/22/2010 6:30:21 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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.


24 posted on 03/22/2010 6:33:57 PM PDT by rbosque (11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Amendment VIII

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.

Amendment IX

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.


25 posted on 03/22/2010 6:34:12 PM PDT by DaveyB (Alcohol ,Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a bureaucracy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
if it exempts the Amish and Muslims from participating

Does it exempt Muslims?

26 posted on 03/22/2010 6:41:40 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
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.

27 posted on 03/22/2010 6:45:07 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Then it’s time to form a new Christian sect which abhors gambling.


28 posted on 03/22/2010 6:49:32 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

When has the SC cared anything about the constitution? I have yet to find that they can read.


29 posted on 03/22/2010 6:50:43 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

We get to see the bill for 72 hours now right?


30 posted on 03/22/2010 6:53:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (Down a lazy river ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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?


31 posted on 03/22/2010 6:58:22 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Governor Palin backs RINO extraordinaire Juan McPain (and that just sucks!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rbosque
...what to eat, what to do.

Next they'll say it's unsafe to keep a gun in your house.

32 posted on 03/22/2010 7:01:01 PM PDT by optiguy (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.----- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
The income tax amendment gives the government the right to pretty much confiscate as much of our income as they wish.

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.

33 posted on 03/22/2010 7:02:03 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

thanks, I was looking for this kind of info last night..


34 posted on 03/22/2010 7:04:17 PM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

THANKS MUCH.

PRINTED TO HAND OUT.


35 posted on 03/22/2010 7:08:09 PM PDT by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

Exactly!


36 posted on 03/22/2010 7:10:18 PM PDT by rbosque (11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Does each violation need to be fought separately, or is there some collective weight that has greater impact?


37 posted on 03/22/2010 7:11:42 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

“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.


38 posted on 03/22/2010 7:18:32 PM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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.


39 posted on 03/22/2010 7:22:27 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

I 2nd that. We need to know what laws this takeover violates. The better informed we are, the better.


40 posted on 03/22/2010 7:24:28 PM PDT by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Bump;egon


41 posted on 03/22/2010 7:26:43 PM PDT by RhoTheta (Wipe out capitalism, no more money. You following me camera guy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
No...just join my new church...The Cubeists

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!!

42 posted on 03/22/2010 7:29:19 PM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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.”


43 posted on 03/22/2010 7:31:54 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Governor Palin backs RINO extraordinaire Juan McPain (and that just sucks!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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?


44 posted on 03/22/2010 7:32:39 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Looks like the slaves got even, with a little help from Marx and Engles.

This will not end well.

For them.


45 posted on 03/22/2010 7:38:23 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
It violates the 24th amendment against poll taxes.

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.

46 posted on 03/22/2010 7:43:03 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
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.

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.

47 posted on 03/22/2010 7:47:42 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

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.


48 posted on 03/22/2010 7:47:44 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Governor Palin backs RINO extraordinaire Juan McPain (and that just sucks!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

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.


49 posted on 03/22/2010 7:48:00 PM PDT by In God I trust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Then it’s time to form a new Christian sect which abhors gambling.

Just claim to be a Baptist. That should cover drinking, dancing, gambling, swearing and smoking.

50 posted on 03/22/2010 7:50:18 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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