List of Constitutional Violations in Healthcare bill

[laweeks]

Doesn’t mean squat to these pigs.

[Star Traveler]

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 ...

[MrChips]

Southerners said the same thing about their slaves.

[rbosque]

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.

[DaveyB]

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.

[expatpat]

if it exempts the Amish and Muslims from participating

Does it exempt Muslims?

[JimWayne]

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.

[expatpat]

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

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

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

[TigersEye]

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

[CitizenUSA]

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?

[optiguy]

...what to eat, what to do.

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

[JimWayne]

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.

[phockthis]

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

[Quix]

THANKS MUCH.

PRINTED TO HAND OUT.

[rbosque]

Exactly!

[Gene Eric]

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

[Soul of the South]

“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.

[Chaguito]

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.

[pctech]

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