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.

 

Florida Attorney General Challenges Constitutionality of Healthcare Bill

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
With the passage of the Healthcare bill through the Senate, it seems the writing is on the wall and we'll soon have socialized healthcare shoved down our throats.

Luckily, some are already coming forward to challenge this obviously Unconstitutional bill;


The New American


Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Wednesday, 30 December 2009 10:15

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum stated December 29 that the healthcare package the U.S. Senate passed on Christmas Eve contains an unconstitutional mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health care insurance.

In a press release on his website, McCollum stated: "I have grave concerns about the constitutionality of this mandate. Such a 'living tax' is worrisome because it would be levied on a person who does nothing, a person who simply wishes not to be forced to buy health insurance coverage. Upon initial review, this appears to be contrary to the freedoms we, as Americans, have enjoyed for the past 233 years. The mandate is especially troubling to Floridians who are guaranteed through the Florida Constitution to have 'the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into [their] private life.'"



Indeed, a federal government mandate to require citizens to purchase such an expensive consumer item — health insurance often costs more than $1,000 per month — has never been created in U.S. history, even in wartime. As the Heritage Foundation recently asked: “Can Congress require all Americans to buy a new Buick every year or pay a tax equivalent to the price of a used LeSabre?” Such is the same power being claimed on behalf of the healthcare legislation. Here's what the principle the healthcare mandate means: The federal government could literally require individual citizens to purchase any product or service under such a federal power, provided that the economy or some other alleged public good is served. For example, under such a power Congress could also require all citizens to deposit their cash in certain banks (perhaps to avoid the bankruptcy of the banks).

The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantees citizens protection against their wealth being taken by the state: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Such a constitutional provision clearly invalidates the healthcare mandate, as the requirement to purchase healthcare insurance constitutes a gigantic “taking” without any compensation from the federal government. The very purpose of forcing everyone to purchase the healthcare coverage — according to proponents of the legislation themselves — is to increase the size of the pool of insured so as to help subsidize the coverage of others. The mandate requires a transfer of wealth , i.e., "property," from some to others without compensation. Moreover, the requirement is not an enumerated power of the Constitution and it violates both the letter and spirit of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



I hope this is just the beginning of the challenges to this horrendous legislation.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem


I hope this is just the beginning of the challenges to this horrendous legislation.



You and me both i hope this shut down and stopped i will never purchase any of this crap and i will stand my ground on that decision come get me



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Luckily, this is not the only front in the battle against the health bill.



7 State prosecutors challenge the Nebraska Compromise



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The biggest problem is that they can't challenge what isn't law.

The reconciliation between the house and senate could bring a total different package that has to be passed and then signed by Obama.

Will be interesting to see the final bill. But we won't see that until after it passes.

Nonetheless, I still feel lawsuits will be filed all over the final bill.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I'm interested in a few things:

1) Why do you believe this legislation is Unconstitutional?

2) Do you think the Supreme Court will take the case if it goes that high?

3) What do you think their ruling would be?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
There is no legislation yet, so nothing is technically unconstitutional.

Once reconciliation occurs between the two Houses and the bill in its final form is presented to the president, will be the only time that the American public will see it in its entirety.

If the bill has a provision to require everyone to maintain a form of insurance or else you will be penalized, then yes, I believe we will see a Supreme Court challenge.

Reason being is there is nothing we are REQUIRED to purchase and the federal government cannot compel the free citizens to purchase something in order to be considered a lawful citizen.

Please do not point out things like Auto Insurance, Home Insurance, etc. Those things are not required to be a citizen. If you do not wish to purchase such items, do not own a house.

I believe with the current makeup of the Court and a strong case against the bill, the legality and constitutionality of requiring people to maintain health insurance will be struck down.



new topics

top topics
 
8

log in

join