Obama over haul of Health Care,

as soon as someone wants to show me where in the Constitution do they get this authority, I will review it -- but as it stands -- I cant find any article that grants them this kind of power...
anyway - this is what NewsMax says about the proposed changes...

www.americanchronicle.com...

CBO: Obama Health Bill Too Sketchy
Tuesday, 23 Feb 2010 10:01 AM Article Font Size
By: Kara Rowland

President Obama tried to woo the GOP with sweeteners and threw out the controversial "cornhusker kickback," but the White House's first stab at resurrecting the health care overhaul was so bare-bones that Congress' budget scorekeeper couldn't put a price tag on it.

In a nod to Republicans, Mr. Obama's proposal calls for a centralized database where government officials can document Medicare and Medicaid abuses — an idea from the conservative House Republican Study Committee.

The president also culled a provision from a centrist House Republican bill that would require background checks for those who provide health care services under Medicare. The plan also adds stronger sanctions such as jail time for those who purchase, sell or distribute Medicare-beneficiary information numbers.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Anti-Evil]




[mod edit: clipped quoted content, added external source tags and source link]
Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

There is no authorization to do it. At all and never has been.

However, that is totally irrelevant today as the Constitution has not been effective in chaining the government for decades. The American people do not care one whit about it either.

There's no point in raising Constitutional issues with Obamacare for two main reasons:

1) The American people do not care what is Constitutional and/or have no clue what is Constitutional.

and

2) The mechanics of the modern legal system creates the ability to manipulate the literal mountains of legal paper and precedent to any ends they want.

Sorry man, but we are way too far down this road to be terribly concerned about Obamacare's Constitutionality. The problem is so big that there is no real way to remove the cancer from the system without killing the patient.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Neither Congress nor the President have the authority.

Amendment X
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.

Congress could gain the authority by following these steps:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Until then, the Federal Government is wasting time and money on a non-issue. It is high time that everyone holding an office by election or appointment take a long hard look at the following, specifically what is bolded and consider who is the authority and what can happen:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words, when the people decide that the government is no longer acting within the bounds of the Constitution, the government can become removed (or excommunicated), by force (or threat of force) of arms if necessary, to ensure the country and the people remain free and not subjugated to a tyrannical and self-serving representation.

Now the funny thing is that it does not take a majority of the people to evoke such change. Just has to be a significant number that is willing to do so and stand behind their convictions. Nor does it have to involve arms. If a large enough segment went to their state capitol and held a protest to immediately recall the Senators and Representatives of that state, then things could become peacefully resolved...provided there was compliance. Refusal to accept a notice of recall or for the state to refuse to issue a notice of recall, is when arms could be brought to bear legally.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Ahabstar]