Healthcare Bill Unconstitutional.

Obama came into office like a tornado, forcing an "economic stimulus" bill on us, then turning to health care, vowing to have it passed by March, if memory serves correctly. Well, we still don't have one. When and IF the healthcare bill is passed next year, I wonder if anyone in congress, as well as the members here on ATS realized that any bill Congress passes will be unconstitutional.

The United States Government cannot, constitutionally, force American citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. This is a right reserved to the states.

The states could, conceivably pass a law which would require the citizens of that state to purchase a minium of coverage for healthcare, just as they require liability insurance for those who own a vehicle and operate said vehicle on public roads.

If we want to carry this further, most of the laws passed by congress have no bearing on the constituion and could be taken to court and overturned.

It is time for the states to call for a constitutional convention to do the following
1. Repeal the 16th amendment. It is a regressive tax system that rewards business and corporations, while punishing the everyday working stiff.
2. An amendment that sets term limits of members of congress.
3. An amendment that NULLIFIES every law passed by congress that is not covered by the the Constitution.
4. A balanced budget, and no deficiet spending.

I can hear the screams out there now. "We can't do that! There would be chaos in the government!' You think there is not chaos now? Our President spends his time traveling all over the world, instead of taking care of business. Our legislature is ignores the will of the people, instead, taking their ques from big business and their respective parties.

Never, in the history of this country have the states successfully called for a constituitional convention, but with the mood of the country, I believe we could get the required 34 states to call for a "Con Con.

My only fear is that we may not have statesmen of the quality of men that sat at the first Convention.

It would be unwise to tinker with the Constitution. Instead, an amendment should be sought. And there are other ways to stop the healthcare bill dead.

1. States could decide to reject it outright by law.

2. Citizens can sue, going directly to the Supreme Court for redress. In this option, the citizens and States, and private insurance companies would all have an argument. But the citizens would be first, and here's why.

A. Slavery was abolished in the 18th century. Forcing people to buy something with their money against their will is slavery in that such monies must be earned through work, and since there is a penalty for not doing so, it is slavery to compel the populace to buy or pay for anything against it's will or desire. The right of citizens to be free in their persona and possessions would also be infringed. In the end there are several Constitutional issues that negate any forced healthcare bill.

B. The population could simply refuse to buy the insurance and by mass numbers cause such upheaval that the Supreme Court would be forced to interfere rendering the law unconstitutional due to it's oppressive nature and intent upon the public.


In the end what is going to be left is a government option that will realistically have to compete with all other plans on a level playing field where the individual may or may not choose to buy. And because the "public option" sucks, it is doomed to fail miserably.

There are a very few GOP members who are making this claim, others in the GOP and the Dem members disagree with this premise.

Most of the constitutional scholars I've seen or heard address this believe that the bills, as currently written, are constitutional.

Add this to the witless "kill your grandma" statements.

This smacks of being the last ditch effort by those opposed to reform and in the pockets of industry special interests.

UNITED STATES CONSTUTUTION

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

__________

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

Why is the healthcare bill slavery...? Here's the link... in US law.

www.gpoaccess.gov...


The key words here is "involuntary servitude" except for a crime...

Case closed...


Oh... Pelosi and Reed... making it a crime not to take the healcare plan, the so called "public option" does NOT negate the 13th Amendment.

The is the USA not the USSA...

Why do you say that it's unconstitutional? Can you quote the Constitution and make your case?

Rhetoric, I doubt very seriously that this is the "last ditch effort" by the GOP. They will be dragged kicking and screaming into this bill. They know no bounds on their efforts. And will keep going after it's passed, if it is.

reply to post by Fromabove


Involuntary servitude? Do you know what that means? It means forcing someone to WORK against their will. How is requiring each person to buy health care forcing them to labor against their will?

Case open.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Bratac]

Even it was true that such legislation is covered by the 10th amendment and is the right of the states, the feds will just do it the same way they did the 55 mph speed limit and the drinking age.

Fed: All states will adopt this law or all federal highway funds to your state will be suspended.

Guess what, every single state will adopt it, even Arizona.

Colt45, works everytime.

I could easily make a rather long list of things that are currently in the law that are unconstitutional, but it doesn't really matter. The supreme court much like our elected representatives are deep in the pockets of special interests and these laws are long standing and though they may be unconstitutional, people have grown so used to them that they are accepted...

voting doesn't work, nor does protesting or complaining.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE DOES, I'm not talking about a group of 5 people which are outnumbered by a dozen cops and easily arrested, I'm talking whole neighborhoods of people who are armed and saying enough.
Non violent but standing their ground, so much so that no sane organization would even attempt to arrest even A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.

Remember folks, we outnumber them, but sadly herd mentality prevails as always and no one realizes that if we stand together even JUST a few hundred of us, they CANT TOUCH US.

reply to post by Bratac
The 10th amendment reserves issues such as this to the states. This is a States Rights issue, not a federal one. The federal government cannot, for example, force you to purchase insurance on your vehicle as a condition of obtaining a driver's license. The states, which issue the license, however, can pass such a law.
Healthcalre is a States Rights issue, not a federal one.

reply to post by Bratac
It forces the worker to spend his/her money on something that may not be needed or wanted, hence it is involuntary servitude.

I have to work to pay for my home, my clothes, my food. I purchase insurance through my job, becuase I choose too. I have the option of saying "no" to the employer sponsered insurance.

reply to post by C0le
I agree with you, except for the part about the Supreme Court being in the pockets of special interest. SCOTUS may well be the most unpredictable arm of the government. I would urge you to read "Packing The Court" by James MacGregor Burns. While Mr Burns writes from a somewhat liberal point of view, in my opinion, he points out that judges that were considered liberal when appointed, often side with the conservative justices, and vice versa, based on the merits of the case.
If SCOTUS was in the hands of the special interest, I doubt they would have upheld the the second amendment in the recent D.C. case.

I would love to see true civil disobedience used to overturn those laws that are unconstitutional, but there are way to many sheeple that wojuld rather roll over and play dead, that stand up to TPTB and tell them to go to hell.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by kettlebellysmith]

Im not a fan of mandates as I believe the single payer system is the best choice for our country.

But if we cannot have single payer than everyone must have health insurance.

Why?

Because by not having it you are raising the cost of health care to unsustainable levels. When you cannot pay the costs are pushed to the people who can.

Now since we all have to get insurance three things need to happen.

1) Make it incredibly affordable.

2) Make sure our rights as consumers are protected and the insurance companies are heavily regulated.

3) The ability to form and pay into our own citizen run health care insurance company that is accountable to the people.


That is what the current House bill does.

...that and the idea that this is unconstitutional is preposterous.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]

Originally posted by Bratac
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Involuntary servitude? Do you know what that means? It means forcing someone to WORK against their will. How is requiring each person to buy health care forcing them to labor against their will?

Case open.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Bratac]

www.lectlaw.com...

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE - a condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude';

Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and

Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.


________________

1. Is the Federal Government attempting to force, coerce, etc. persons to purchase a health insurance plan, against a person's right to refuse it without penalty, intimidation, or fear for doing so..?

Answer: Yes

2. Is that "Public Option" for any duration of time..?

Answer: Yes

3. Does the Federal Government have foreknowledge of it's attempt to force people to buy a health care insurance against a persons will to refuse any such plan..?

Answer: Yes


When you are forced to "purchase" the "Public Option" against your will under penalty of punishment, and when such a purchase is paid for with money you earned, saved, or own, it is "involuntary servitude" and violates the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.



Case re-closed.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Fromabove]

I might also add that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government under the US Constitution belong to the States and the people respectively.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a delegated power to compel any citizen under the Constitution to purchase by force of law and under penalty of law, anything the Federal government shall decide by it's own will that person must have involuntarily.

If you cannot afford private health insurance than...

You can find much more affordable and better plans in the insurance exchange.

If you cannot afford the premiums from the plans in the exchange than you can qualify to buy into the premiums from the citizen run "Public Option" Health Insurance company.


If you cannot even afford that, than the Government will subsidize the difference so you can have good health care.


It's very simple, if you want to live in the United States you have to buy Health Insurance because if you don't it effects us all.

If you refuse to buy incredibly affordable and pay assisted insurance and then refuse to pay the penalty within your taxes, than yes you would be in deep do do with the IRS.

It's patriotic to get affordable great health care insurance so it does not bankrupt this nation. It's the patriotic thing to do your part for the sake of the country.

Republicans complain to high hell about supporting welfare Queens and illegal immigrants yet they have the absolute nerve to complain about being forced to buy great affordable health insurance that will even be subsidized if you cannot afford it. Because if you refuse to buy health insurance when its easily made available to you ...WE HAVE TO PICK UP YOUR TAB when you get sick.

Here is something that would bring down over all costs dramatically and make us a healthier more productive nation.

You know ....LIKE EVERY OTHER WESTERNIZED NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]

Then... on the other hand...

Let's say they want to make the "Public Option" legal... Hmmm

1. It must be voluntary in all areas where it applies.

2. No person shall be compelled to "purchase" it. Therefore the Government shall offer it for free to all persons, and as such, may indiuce a legal tax as prescribed in the Constitution ( Commerce taxation and import tax)

3. It must be fair to all persons.

4. It must not cause private insurers to be damaged by any such plan by intention.

reply to post by AllexxisF1
Instead of the "public option,' all that is needed is to change the rules so that I (and you) can purchase insurance across state lines. In my state, there are only 2 companies allowed to do business. BC&BS and Q-Care. My company, because it is owned by the county, uses Q-Care. I can't even go out of state for hospitalization. If I have an accident in another state, say Florida, I have to notify them in 48 hrs, so they can put things in motion to get me to a hospital in my state. Until then, I am paying big bucks for my care. But I don't have the choice to by a policy that will let me go where I want to go. If I need the Mayo clinic I'm screwed. And I will be screwed when and IF this health care bill passes.

Get Pelosi and Reid out of the process and we might be able to come to some agreement. (I work in healthcare, and I don't believe we need reform. We just need bust up the insurance company monopolies so there is true competition.)

reply to post by AllexxisF1



I think the part where you say "forced" is why people reject the plan. But with competition the cost would come down. If the Federal Government would be the liability insurer for doctors, the cost would come down. And if they stop greedy lawyers from suing over everything and anything, the cost would come down.

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
Im not a fan of mandates as I believe the single payer system is the best choice for our country.

But if we cannot have single payer than everyone must have health insurance.

Why?

Because by not having it you are raising the cost of health care to unsustainable levels. When you cannot pay the costs are pushed to the people who can.

Just so you know, this is what is going to happen IF reform goes through. All of those people -- yes, some of which are obese, drink too much, drive cars that won't adequately protect them, etc -- will be provided insurance BY ONLY THOSE OF US THAT THE GOV'T CONSIDERS ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

Now since we all have to get insurance three things need to happen.

1) Make it incredibly affordable.

According to whose standards? Is this going to take into account the amount of money we have lost -- due to income cuts, house depreciation, etc? Our income is 40% less than a year ago. Yet, my property taxes continue to go up. Who is going to pay for all that while you are siphoning more of MY money to pay for someone else's insurance?

2) Make sure our rights as consumers are protected and the insurance companies are heavily regulated.

Why? Because they do such a good job of it now? That's the problem with government-run healthcare -- conflict of interest. Do you really think that are going to cut into their own profits -- at a time when the deficit is enormous and unmanageable -- to protect us?

Or rather, is it going to simply be chalked up as another "unforeseen loophole?".

3) The ability to form and pay into our own citizen run health care insurance company that is accountable to the people.

Oh yes...because accountability and transparency has been going so well so far.....

A leopard doesn't change his spots...there has been NO indication thus far that Obama is going to be more accountable than any other thief in Washington. We are still missing billions of dollars of stimulus fund money and military budget money..... but I guess that's not worth looking for. instead, they'll just take more from us to cover it.

You really think that gaining even more power is going to change that? Nope....that how dictators are born. They don't give more to the people when they get more power -- they take more. Period.

...that and the idea that this is unconstitutional is preposterous.

Agreed.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by lpowell0627]

reply to post by AllexxisF1
No where in the constitution is the right to health care guaranteed. We are to PROVIDE for the common defense, and to PROMOTE the general welfare. That is not a a guarantee of the right to healthcare. Neither is it a right to a welfare check, or medicaide, or even Social Security or Meidcare. To promote the general welfare means you have the right to seek a job, to obtain payment in exchange for your labors, and the government has the limited right to encourage employers to hire someone to fulfil a particular postion. It means the government has the obligation to step in, in the case of a national emergency, provide temporary relief, and then move out, and let private enterprise step in and take over.
The healthecare bill WILL bankrupt this country. In case you haven't noticed, we are now well into our second generation of entitlements, and the cost only keeps growing. Welfare was meant to be a stop gap measure, to support someone who had fallen on hard times, until they could improve their situation. While some have done so, there is a tremendous number of people who have spent their entire lives on welfare, while a smaller and smaller number of citizens are working to pay for them.
Welfare, just like the healthecare bill is unconstitutional, and should be brought before SCOTUS, or presented at a constitutional conventikon