It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Health Care Bill Legal and Constitutional?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I have notice people will use emotions and blind ignorance to justify their causes.

I would hope people will see though the smoke screen, but if they can't I would hope people will post facts, links and why the proposed "Health Care Bill" is illegal and against the constitution, if it's not illegal of unconstitutional then please show us why also.

Instead of people getting emotional about all this. Ask yourselves is this Legal and Constitutional?

www.mankatofreepress.com...


Congress is ignoring two crucial factors in its debate over health insurance. One is the reality that the problem is not health insurance, but high medical prices due in part to market distortion caused by federal entitlement programs and income tax policies related to health insurance.

The more crucial issue is that the proposed federal health insurance mandates are unconstitutional in principle and in detail.

You have a constitutional right to be secure in your person, property and papers. That means that no government has any authority to search or demand your health insurance or medical records unless there is probable cause that they are related to a criminal matter.

You have a right to a federal government limited to the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The power to mandate individual or employer-based health insurance is not among those powers, nor can such power be properly derived from the power “to collect taxes...to promote the general welfare of the United States” or even the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress is proposing variously disguised taxes on those who do not have health insurance. These are direct taxes, which are prohibited by the Constitution unless apportioned by state, yet they cannot be apportioned since uninsured persons are not apportioned. Therefore these schemes are illegal.

Congress also wants to criminalize lack of health insurance as intent to defraud health care providers; this is as absurd as declaring gun ownership proof of intent to murder.

It is up to each of us to sternly remind our senators and representatives that they are acting outside their legal authority, and demand that they cease and desist.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Here is how are representatives view questions asked from what I would call the majority of responsible people.

This really bothers me, because I am for some type of health care reform, but not the poorly complied, illegal, and ambiguous proposed package.


www.wnd.com...


CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."

"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Denniger's Market Watch article from 11/8/2009
market-ticker.denninger.net...



Do we live in a Constitutional Republic any longer?

The 16th Amendment made lawful the income tax - that is, a direct tax on Americans.

But nowhere in The Constitution is the power found to force people, under penalty of law (including fines and imprisonment), to pay private parties for services they do not desire to purchase.

Yet that is in the bill passed last night.

Yes, we have Congressfolk - both men and women, and all Democrats (save one Republican) who voted for this.

This sure appears to be blatantly unconstitutional - and, I would argue, those who voted for the bill know it.

If you watched CSPAN yesterday you heard the speeches. All those who rose in favor of the bill talked not about The Constitution and how this bill was a solution to the problems facing America's Health Care System - a system that consumes some 17% of our GDP - but rather it appealed to how individuals with specific circumstances would be helped.

But a desire to help someone is not the test for legislation. All legislation by definition is designed to help someone. The test is whether whatever is being proposed comports with the black-letter requirements of The Constitution, and the even-blacker-letter requirements of the laws of mathematics.

This bill meets neither essential test of all legislation; it instead proposes to destroy our Constitutional system of government.

Yet despite member after member rising last evening in opposition and stating that these mandates were unconstitutional not one rebuttal of that point was made by those in support.

The "Holy Grail" for the so-called "private" insurance businesses is forcing everyone onto one of their plans. This is due to the problem of "adverse selection" - that is, you would not buy insurance until you got sick if it is quite (or very) expensive. The more expensive the insurance gets the worse this problem becomes and the "insurance" ceases to be insurance at all. Remember, "insurance" is a thing you buy to protect against an unlikely outcome - if you're already ill or believe you will become ill the outcome isn't unlikely - it is either probable or known.

Yet the desires and demands of private business do not give license to use The Constitution as toilet paper.

But the extra-constitutional game didn't stop there. Oh no. This 1990 page monstrosity goes much further. It mandates that employers not only cover everyone they hire and pay at least a specific percentage of their premiums (or face a fine) it also mandates that said employer cover all members of that employee's family. While it is unlawful to discriminate against people based on their family status, what do you think is going to happen to salaries across the board to cover the risk of someone showing up for a job interview and having eight kids?

Does Octomom become permanently unemployable - or does every employer in the nation reduce your salary offer now and forever to guard against the possibility of another Octomom showing up for a job interview?

You know the answer here - nobody is going to take the risk of a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit. Your salary offer will be reduced, and if you are currently employed, you can forget about raises for a long time.

There are Constitutional solutions to this mess. I have posted about them before. My chronicle of those posts in The Ticker is found here; it encompasses a reasonably small set.


Seems like the Constitution is worthless to the Legislature when it impedes their goals.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
As I said here, I felt that it violates the 4th, 8th, 9th and most definitely the 10th Amendments.

And as far as the subject itself. There is no provision in the Constitution for Congress and the Federal Government to administer Health Care.

The FDA is questionable, however it would indeed be in the interest of the people to have federal oversight in both food processing and medications for human consumption.

While helping secure health care for those in financial need is both noble and humane, there is nothing specifically granted to the Federal government to take these powers.

I am all for UHC, which this bill is not, but stress that it should be a power granted by Constitutional Amendment instead of a flagrant power grab.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar

I am all for UHC, which this bill is not, but stress that it should be a power granted by Constitutional Amendment instead of a flagrant power grab.



I would agree with you 100%, but this bill is insanity at best.

I wrote the word "Surreal" on another thread in regards to this legislation.

Our representatives took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, but will look the other way to pass a bill they have not read, nor understand.

But it's ok they'll work the details out later.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Again loads of more FUD that is completely and utterly baseless.

1) The major rise in health care costs are inefficiency and those without insurance getting treatment when their symptoms are at their worst.

2) The Federal Government is in no way shape or form providing health care. Your summation is complete and utter bull ****. What this health care reform bill does is regulate the insurance industry (which directly falls under Congresses authority) and allows the creation of a citizen run health insurance company.

3) A public run health insurance company does not provide health care. It does not take your bloody temperature and it sure as hell does not shove a probe up your keister. All it does is pool money gathered from premiums and pay doctors. That's it, nothing more.


So knock off this unconstitutional garbage and for God sakes shut off right wing media, it's rotting your brain.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


Is the Health Care Bill Legal and Constitutional?

'Constitutional,' that's funny....Congress has been using the Constitution to wipe their arses with for a long time now...


In case you haven't noticed, Congress does not represent 'we the people,' they represent 'we the corporate elite.'

PEACE and LOVE...

[edit on 10-11-2009 by rainfall]

[edit on 10-11-2009 by rainfall]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I don't think it matters anymore if it's constitutional. I can't think of any acts or laws made since 9/11 that are constitutional. Remember it's up to the supreme court to decide if a law is constitutional and I think they have reading comprehension issues.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
It is not constitutional legal. Under section 9 of the limits on congress, as per the constitution of the Unites States of America, it states: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
What that means is that this bill, will punish the people for not having health insurance. By not having health insurance, the penalty portion would give the government the right to make a person a felon and then proceed to take away their right to vote and own firearms. Not considering that there would be a huge fine and possible jail time associated with.
Side, right now it has to get through the Senate, and it is the final bill that is sent to the President for his approval or veto. It is the final bill that is the one to watch, cause if it is passed, then it will be time to get a lawyer, and one who is willing to submit the case to the Supreme Court and get it on the court doctet.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by sdcigarpig]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
No, there is nothing Constitutional about this proposed legilsation, and therefore, by its very nature is completely illegal!

Some will attempt to use the "General Welfare" statement found in the Preamble as the justification. However, the Preamble is neither declaratory law, a part of of the Bill of Rights or an article of the Constitution. It is merely an introduction to the declaratory law which follows it. That being said, the founding fathers did not intend for the use of the word "Welfare" in the context it is used today.

I posted this in another thread and am pasting here for convenience...

As far as what the Federal government is responsible for... The 10th Ammendment states, "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." Did you happen to notice the part that specifies that the Federal Government is ONLY permitted power over that which is stated in the Constitution?

Let's look at what powers the Constitution grants the Federal Government... This is enumerated under Article 1, Section 8 which states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

As you can see, the above SPECIFICALLY outlines Congressional authority. That which is NOT mentioned belongs to the states or its peoples, respectively. But let's get back to that pesky word in the Preamble, "Welfare."

So, what then does the "General Welfare" in the Constitution describe? The founding fathers intended that "General Welfare" be understood as the "Collective good" benefiting equally the states united. This means that the Federal Government would conduct itself in a way, limited by it's authority written into the Constitution, to ensure that those rights of individuals outlined in Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 and Article 3, Section 3 and throughout the Bill of Rights never be infringed or usurped - either by the States OR the Federal Government.

To such end, the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights which specifically enumerate those rights to which the persons of the states united would be entitled to receive from the Federal Government. They are as follows:

1st Amendment: Freedom of (or from) religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to assemble. Freedom to petition the government.

2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms.

3rd Amendment: Freedom from quartering soldiers.

4th Amendment: Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrants must only be issued upon probable cause, and shall be specific.

5th Amendment: Criminal indictments must be by grand jury. Freedom from double jeopardy. Freedom from testifying against oneself. Right to face accusers. Right to due process. Right of just compensation for takings.

6th Amendment: Right to speedy trial. Right to impartial jury. Right to be informed of the charges upon which the accused is held. Right to face accusers. Right to produce witnesses for the accused. Right to legal counsel.

7th Amendment: Right to jury trial in civil cases. Facts found by a jury cannot be reexamined by another court.

8th Amendment: Freedom from excessive bail or fines. Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment.

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The preceeding are the RIGHTS GUARANTEED by the Federal Government to its citizens. Again, I challenge you to provide me with the statement that includes healthcare! The 9th Ammendment, on it's own, signifies that those rights not implied by the first 9 Ammendments to the Constitution, better known as The Bill of Rights, be retained by the people. In other words, you have no entitlements from the Federal Government other than what is written in the Bill of Rights and no expectation of anything not specifically outlined int he Constitution!

We can debate, ad nauseum, the benefits of these social programs. But what we cannot debate is the Constituional authority granted the Federal Government to create, implement, manage, mandate or apply by force any law not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. In other words, individuals could not be compelled by the Federal Government to participate in social welfare programs. Those were left specifically to the states, whose own Constitutions usually prohibited such infringement upon personal rights. As a result, churches and local community organizations typically provided social welfare programs for the members of its own community who were in need of such on a VOLUNTARY basis.

So, what happened!?!? How did we end up here!?!?

Well, through the slippery slope of political correctness and political aspirations. You see, from the evidence and analysis provided above, that Congress has over-stepped its authority countless thousands of times over the past century. The lawyers who have served as politicians have played the part of "WordSmith" and distorted the intentions of our founding documents by literally usurping its authority through its own language. Allow me to present an example... The right of Congress to levy and collect taxes - read what it was intended for and what it has become.

The slow creep of authoritarianism, greed, thirst for power, etc... has led our legislators to declare allegience to their own political aspirations first, their corporate financiers second, their party third and their constituents last, if ever - and only when it suits the first three allegiences.

Some parting thoughts... A frog thrust into a boiling pot jumps out, however a frog placed into a tepid pot allows the temperature to be raised ever so slowly that it boils to death without realizing it.

And finally... “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” – Fall Of The Republic



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Ok how much are you prepared to wager that the Supreme Court (which is very much Conservative these days) will not ever come down and say this is unconstitutional?

Any takers?

Since the Sherman Anti Trust Act (actually even before) the Congress of the United States has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Period.

Over 100 years of ZERO overturned rulings by the court solidify that decision.

Yet a bunch of internet jockeys think they know better because some right wing media outlet told them so.

The courts and history are on my side of the argument so please ...any takers?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


That is what is so disturbing about this whole thing and as one of the other posters put it, "Wiping their arses with the constitution since 9/11".

We are slowly losing any rights and the people in place to protect them are destroying everyone's rights, under the auspice of "we'll protect you all" attitude, but what they are doing is just the opposite.


(sigh)




top topics



 
2

log in

join