Obamacare attacked as unconstitutional invasion of privacy

Obamacare attacked as unconstitutional invasion of privacy

www.examiner.com

In my last column, "Under Obamacare, where will Canadians go for medical services?," I highlighted Gun Owners of America's (GOA's) opposition on privacy grounds to President Obama's obsession with nationalizing medical services in America. Noting that mainstream privacy experts are also alarmed at the Obama administration's "damn the torpedoes" attitude to impose statist policy mandates at whatever the cost to privacy, I called for an unholy alliance of gun owners and privacy advocates to take action to stop Obamacare now before it becomes a social and economic entanglement that would

(visit the link for the full news article)

Why doesn’t this surprise me? This is Unconstitutional!?? If anyone should know this it should be the President of the United States. What is happening to the law of the land. It seems as if it’s being stripped away a piece at a time.

Citing to the line of constitutional privacy cases that led up to the Supreme Court's striking down of government bans on use of contraception and abortion services, Rivkin and Casey argue that even under Obama's so called "public option," Obama's plan turns into what amounts to a single-payer system [and] the constitutional issues regarding treatment and reimbursement decisions will be manifold," and spark litigation with a substantial likelihood of success due to the program's inherent "undue burdens" on Americans' privacy rights. In other words, Obamacare will legally blow up when everybody realizes that by making the government our brother's first payer it requires government to be our brother's first keeper as well.

www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Is Government Health Care Constitutional?

Is a government-dominated health-care system unconstitutional? A strong case can be made for that proposition, based on the same "right to privacy" that underlies such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade.

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances

Anyone who imagines that Congress can simply avoid the constitutional issues -- and lawsuits -- by withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over the new health system must think again. A brief review of the Supreme Court's recent war-on-terror decisions, brought by or on behalf of detained enemy combatants, will disabuse that notion. This area of governmental authority was once nearly immune from judicial intervention. Over the past five years, however, the Supreme Court (supposedly the nonpolitical branch) has unapologetically transformed itself into a full-fledged, policy-making partner with the president and Congress.

online.wsj.com...

Yes, this is unconstitutional imo, but that doesn't change the fact that they will just ignore it like in so many other cases and any lawsuits brought for this action will not be heard.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that our Supreme Court is not apolitical anymore.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


They seem to be ignoring a lot of the constitution lately like HR 675 allowing the military to arrest citizens, etc, etc, and be state police. Even though it's illegal it will still happen. Without declaring a State emergency.

Right out of the liberal playbook. Push, push, push, until you are told to stop.
I can see it in the Oval Office, "How far can we go?"

"We can go as far as we want Mr. president. You won. Remember?"

"Yeah, sure. Where are the dancing boys I ordered? Give me another cigarette! Michelle, quit beating the servants! What's next on our agenda today?"

"Uh, Mr. President, you have a 'destroy the first ammendment at one, a destroy the second ammendment at two, and a yoga/pillates class at three."

"Cancel the yoga and see if we can destroy Montana and Wyoming instead."

"Yes Mr. president. Anything else?"

"Yes, have the NSA sneak some meth into Palin's drinking water, just for the heck of it."

"Yes, Mr. President."

Military arrest of citizens is indeed illegal and yes they'll do it anyway even though it is treason by them to do it, and to the citizen who allows it. Although it would be for naught, I would fight to the death any military personal who try to arrest me, and urge others to do so. The constitution tells you outright that you don't have to obey a law that commits treason by defying constitutional law.

reply to post by mikerussellus



Liberal play books, that is funny. We know some weird stuff is going on behind those closed doors but I'm guessing it's Paul Volcker giving Obama instructions on what to do next.

the real problem here is that the government is no longer subject to the law. it doesn't matter how many safeguards are put in place if only the little people are expected to obey them. we have reached the point that anybody who represents government can just ignore anything they want to. it doesn't even matter what kind of plan or even constitution we have if it becomes irrelevant.

it's going to be very difficult to make personal medical information easy to exchange because each system holds things differently. big government sees that as a problem of course but i'm not so sure any more. the more standardized it all becomes, the easier it is to access for anybody and everybody.

even if government sets standards on who can receive what kinds of care based on...whatever they plan to base it on. i assume they will pretend these will be medical decisions: can this person really benefit from a hip replacement or is he too old and too fat and doesn't eat enough vegetables and has asthma? or will it be based on what kind of job (importance) the person has? and there is NO doubt in my mind that anybody well connected to the regime in power (both parties) will get their treatment regardless of anything else.

in other words, the more they they know about us the easier it will be to reward and punish in terms of medical treatment as well as taxes and everything else.

that sounds awfully cynical.

health care industry does need reform. i just don't trust obama to do it because he turns everything into a power grab.

reply to post by earlywatcher


Good point

" Sorry mam we cant help; you had a prexisting medical condition"

"Sorry we dont cover Birth control pills we prefer to gut you instead."

"Sorry about your prostate sir but you failed to get a screeing as required by law"

The possibilities are endless!

The constitution? Whats that?

Sad thing is we don't have any checks and balances anymore. The court has become nothing but a political tool.

I doubt this would even get struck down, it will be bankrupt even before it gets started. In fact the whole country is bankrupt.

But, don't worry though Obama is going to save us all.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
The constitution? Whats that?

Sad thing is we don't have any checks and balances anymore. The court has become nothing but a political tool.

I doubt this would even get struck down, it will be bankrupt even before it gets started. In fact the whole country is bankrupt.

But, don't worry though Obama is going to save us all.

That seems to be the recent mindset of the average American. That Obama will save all the people. Praise Obama. This stuff isnt in the local newspaper or they be an uprising!

reply to post by wonderworld


No I don't think most people would notice. The typical American is unaware of what really is going on around them. Thinking things through is something most people don't do. If they did would we be where we are now! Watching Obama in action is like watching a faith healer. Lots of flash and pretty words but ultimately useless!

[edit on 4-7-2009 by hangedman13]

Of course it is unconstitutional.

But, not for privacy reasons. As much as I hate to say, there is no constitutional right to privacy in the Constitution. Never has been, never will be. A constitutional right to privacy is a legal fallacy. Point out where privacy is guaranteed in the Constitution.

But, government healthcare is unconstitutional. The federal government doesn't have the constitutional power or right to govern that area of this country or of our economy or of a person's free will (right to choose medical care, facilities, doctors, pharmacies, etc). And, even if it ever came up, there would be constitutional questions as to whether the States have that power, either.

Privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution and neither is government funded and run health care.

Do they care? Hell no. Will it matter in the end? Hell no. Will they continue to do all the unconstitutional things they've done for years?? Of course.....

[edit on 7/4/2009 by skeptic1]

reply to post by hangedman13


Yes the people are still worshipping Obama. I think most have compassion that all this was dumped on him; however his policy choices will backfire. They already have.

There were other choices besides the Stimulus bill. what's it stimulated? Maybe a few egos, especially disregarding the GDP. You can be an idiot and know that much.

reply to post by skeptic1


I think they are implying the privacy of personal choice as mentioned below. Yes I know the constitution has no privacy rights.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

It is, of course, impossible to predict how and when the courts will ultimately rule on the new health system. Much depends on the details and the extent to which reasonable and practical private alternatives to the national plan remain. In crafting the law, however, its White House and congressional sponsors must keep privacy -- that near absolute right to personal autonomy they have so often praised and promoted -- squarely before them. The only thing that is certain today is that the courts, and not Congress, will have the last word.

online.wsj.com...

Your right hell no they dont care.

reply to post by skeptic1


Yes you are correct that there is no right to privacy stated exactly as that in the constitution, but the 4th amendment has always been interpreted by the supreme court since the inception of America that it does indeed mean you have a right to privacy.

So yes we do have a constitutional right to privacy it just isn't stated as the right to privacy.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Thanks for clearing that up. I should make a large poster with that clause and stick it next to the Declaration of Indepenence.

Thanks!

reply to post by wonderworld


No problem.

I can see where people get it confused, but having the right to be "secure" to you property and effects, is the same as having the right to privacy.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


This is unconstitutional for other reasons. Mainly due to the fact that the federal government has zero power to do something like this. Of course, this administration and Congress seems to love doing things that are unconstitutional.

Argue the real reasons it is unconstitutional, and not a legal fallacy (no enumeurated right to personal privacy within the Constitution with the enumerated exception of illegal search and seizure).

That's my point. There are the solid, concrete reasons that this is unconstitutional other than the one that can be argued the way I did in my first post. Others that cannot be argued.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

But, think about it for a minute......if government takes over healthcare (which we all pretty much know it start to sometime before the 2010 elections), how private will these things be?? These cases established the "constitutional right to privacy", and a simple stroke of Obama's pen will erase it. Easy to do when the right is not concrete to begin with.

So, fight its unconstitutionality on concrete grounds, not soggy ones.

Just my take on this.......