Posted on 10/14/2013 8:50:54 AM PDT by Slyfox
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.
I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
If the truth be told, Hillary was working on this in the 1990s. What is now Obamacare is just the end result of the entire marxist effort to control all of our access to medical care.
It is the same bullcrap from the same bunch of cows.
After the Constitution is destroyed, will there still be any need for constitutional lawyers?
Roberts had to make a quick and dirty decision because he had his plane ticket to that certain Mediterranean island. The bank was waiting for his deposit. The catch is he was photographed going into the bank carrying a good sized brief case. There were/are web photos of Roberts on Malta with the briefcase. I recall/believe the Vatican bank was also involved. Roberts was planted on the SC so that the USA would be tied to the ‘new world order’. As far as I am concerned he is a despicable ‘American’.
She wouldn’t care anyway...she is all about limiting the and me but not she...
Besides, who says he is planning on leaving?
That’s my point. He doens’t plan on leaving. The libs would never do this if they thought a conservative could ever be president.
I posted this because I thought the content of what the Constitutional lawyer had to say was very interesting.
I am aware that it is four years old. The bill was not revised, it was passed.
We are now having to wake up like after a full night drunk binger realizing that what we signed up for ain't what we thought we signed up for.
Nonsense. Of course there is. The fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches ... ." What is that about, except the right to privacy against government intrusion into our lives?
You will say "It's not in the Constitution." But to say so would completely negate the 9th Amendment which plainly recognizes unenumerated rights in its language: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
How is it even possible to imagine a society based on liberty and limited government without recognizing that free people do, in fact, have a natural right to be protected from government intrusion into the most intimate details of their lives. Good luck establishing a free society without acknowledging a such a natural right.
Conservatives make a grave and tragic error when they argue that Roe vs. Wade errs in recognizing a non-existent right to privacy, when in fact they're picking the wrong fight.
The fact is, the right to privacy is irrelevant to the argument against abortion, which actually should be an argument about a mother's rights vs. the rights of an unborn child. The abortion issue is really about rights in conflict. But it is not fundamentally about privacy, no matter what the Supreme Court says.
Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision because it fails to take into account the fact that the unborn have a right to life. But let's not try to rectify that inhuman omission by throwing out one of our other most basic rights -- the natural right to privacy.
In fact, conservatives should be in leftist's faces screaming about the right to privacy all the time, on a lot of different issues.
For example, although the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to impose one, it does not give the government the right to violate our other Constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and the specifically enumerated 5th Amendment to the right against self-incrimination (i.e. being forced to submit a tax return signed under the penalty of perjury.
Sorry. You lose unless you can offer a rational argument negating the right to privacy other than just repeating that "there is no such right." And don't tell me it's not a right because it's not in the Constitution, unless you want to repeal the Ninth Amendment.
If you want to make the case that there is no right to privacy without invoking the two arguments I just named, then please enlighten me. I have an open mind and remain ready to be convinced by a logical argument, if you can make one.
Go ahead. I double dog dare you. I'm all ears.
When a Republican President is in office, Roberts could be impeached for his role in the conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution.
Forgot the old catch all from Viet Nam days...FUBAR.
‘general Welfare’ pertains to the United States. It does not translate to the Citizens thereof (We the People).
Yes. That if you keep bringing up embarrassing subjects like this one, you're going to wind up gorked-out in a political thorazine ward.
Or floating in Chesapeake Bay. Which is simpler, and permanent.
Pssssst .... "Vince Foster" .....
Obamacare is a massive imposition of totalitarianism.
SteveH :" According to snopes.com, the essay is about a different healthcare bill than Obamacare, so if true, this essay is outdated."
Right ! .. and SNOPES and George Soros are known for their honesty and integrity !
The Constitution of the United States begins with (before Article I) ...
We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Please note that the Constitution was written to secure rights for "ourselves and our Prosperity."
obamacare is 2,000 some pages long.
Since it passed, there have been 15,000 pages of regulations added to it.
And the kicker is that most of this law is left to the discretion of the HHS secretary, which means that the law is vague and left up to the decision of an appointed lackey.
The current HHS secretary is an abortion queen and hard core Marxist like her boss.
Snopes will stretch and twist the truth to protect Obama. But, on this point, they are verifiably correct. ObamaCare was ultimately enacted as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (HR 3590), not HR 3200.
(Of course, that's largely a meaningless distinction - while there were certain cosmetic changes, the overall structure of ObamaCare was largely the same between HR 3200 and HR 3590)
Did I miss something—am I wrong?
A day will come when those adopted children will be grown enough to realize that their father destroyed an entire country on their behalf.
Imagine having the weight of that hanging over your head.
yes but this may be inaccurate as a critique of obamacare since it does not address the specific obamacare bill. see the snopes comments.
Has anyone learned what kind of blackmail was used on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to force his approval of Obama Care?
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.