Violations of the US Constitution

Much is said about how the US has gone rogue or is acting unconstitutionally and many ask how and what they have done or are doing that is unconstitutional. This will by no means be complete with all historical events just what is currently done unconstitutionally. Not since 1913 has the People had such a monumental decision fostered upon them that violates the Constitution as deeply as Health Care Reform. At least in 1913, the Amendment process was followed at least loosely. This time the People take it no differently than a decision to congratulate the winner of the NCAA Basketball Tournament.


Article 1, Section 3

Originally had the two Senators chosen by each state's legislature in order to represent the states. This was overturned by the 17th Amendment in 1913.

Article 1, Section 8

• The IRS collects the taxes on income. The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Dept. The Sec. of the Treasury is appointed by the President and then confirmed by Congress.
  
  
• To establish Post Offices and post roads. The USPS was established in 1971. No longer was the Postmaster General a member of the President's Cabinet. 1982 was the last year Postal Service received a public service subsidy. However, despite now being a private enterprise, the USPS still receives quite a bit of protectionism from the Federal Government contrary to Anti-Trust laws.
  

Article 1, Section 9

• “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Overturned by 16th Amendment in 1913.
  
• ”No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” Well, except for your phone bill, electric bill, gas bill, road tax on gasoline, sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol, CDL holder's to have a federal background check to obtain Haz-Mat endorsements,........
  
• ”No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” Well except for the Federal Reserve Bank, oh and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. No one seems to know where that money has been going with success reports from non-existent districts.
  

Article 1, Section 9

“No state shall ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;...” But Federal Reserve Notes are a-okay. At least the USPS has the decency to make their website a .com and not a .gov

Article 2, Section 4

“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Has anyone read this far in a while. Requesting Congress to create bills that are outside their scope and circumvents protection guaranteed by the Constitution is not exactly a petty crime.

Article 4

Section 1—gay marriage laws from state to state.
Section 2-- Indoor smoking bans in some states do not allow the same freedoms of business owners in the several state the same freedoms to conduct their business as they see fit. See also Prohibition.
Section 3—West Virginia
Section 4—9/11

Article 6

Just how many cases on the question of Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status have been dismissed without a hearing? Or more easily explained, how many laws and bills circumvent the Constitution are there?

Don't forget the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of this ... person...








[edit on 21-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]

Well there's not much that can be said in rebuttal to that my friend...

So far all I've heard was silence from the peanut gallery! =)



[edit on 21-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]

That's right.

Article 1 Section 8 lists 17 specific areas of governance granted to the federal government.

Health care isn't one of them.

The 10th Amendment makes it clear that those powers not specifically delegated to the federal congress are reserved to the states or to the people.

The 9th Amendment makes it clear that the people retain the bulk of the rights (free actions).

The healthcare bill violates the 5th and 6th amendments due process because it imposes a fine on those who don't get health insurance without a jury trial or court order.

The healthcare bill also violates the 4th amendments protections of privacy. The government can not go snooping around medical records or determining the status of your insurance without a court order and probable cause.

In fact, the entire bill is one big constitution violating joke.

I love what I learn from post like this. And , and ...they make great flyiers while standing in line for my free goverment Flu shot.

Thank you for putting all these points together for the rest of us that are busy chasing little green men.

I really feel that we have more than enough A call for Impeachment

And not just for POTUS.


yousa gotta uh star flaggen mesa tinks

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Grayelf2009]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Regarding the HCR Bill and the Bill of Rights:

1st: You will not be able to have much voice in opposition to this oppression. As it falls under the providence of the IRS. Good luck there.

4th: Your financial and medical records are wide open. No need to obtain a warrant now.

5th: Your hard earned cash was just legislated away. No need for your day in court.

6th: Who will you cross examine? Yep no one.

7th: I do believe this will cost more than $20, where is that jury again?

8th: What is the penalty for non-compliance? Anything more than $20?

9th: What I choose to purchase is now a right of the gov't?

10th: Even the state can not seem to come to bat for us, since Congress magically included HCR within their scope of powers.

reply to post by Grayelf2009


Sorry I missed that thread so a belated S & F.

There are enough offenses that are easily proven to start hanging dog catchers to prevent succession into higher offices it would appear. As for Impeachment, good luck getting Nancy to go for it. She seems convinced people are not serious when they ask what the Constitutionality of the HCR Bill was.

Personally I would love for nothing more than an armed militia to enter the Congressional Chambers and ask what the Constitutionality of these actions are before the vote begins. It may take years for the smell to be removed from the carpet.

To promote the general welfare of the people was one of many reasons the constitution was established. Our health care system as it is now is failing the people and many of this country citizens realize that and are okay with the attempt to pass Obama care. Ironically many of people who oppose this bill the sames who got screwed by Bush's Big Pharma deal. American politics at it's finest.

Much of what the federal government does in unconstitutional.

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.

Tenth Amendment

to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.

– South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)


[edit on 21-3-2010 by METACOMET]

Originally posted by jrod
To promote the general welfare of the people was one of many reasons the constitution was established. Our health care system as it is now is failing the people and many of this country citizens realize that and are okay with the attempt to pass Obama care. Ironically many of people who oppose this bill the sames who got screwed by Bush's Big Pharma deal. American politics at it's finest.

The framers laid out exactly what the "general welfare" entails in Article 1 Section 8.

Healthcare isn't in there.

The "general welfare" is defined by the 17 bullet points listed under the provision that allows congress to tax for the purposes of enforcing those 17 points.

Here's a wild idea...let's follow the constitution AND include a few extras that don't contradict the words written down!

Just because it doesn't specifically say something doesn't mean you can't do it, right?

It would only be against the constitution if were in direct contradiction to its words.

Healthcare is popular right now, let's go with that: Nowhere in constitution does it say we have a right to free healthcare....nowhere in the constitution does it say we do not have a right to free healthcare. Hmmm...what say you now constitutionalists? Can we have free health care or not?

So, the composition of the US constitution is ingenious in that it allows a LOT of room for improvement over time. If it doesn't say you can't do something....why not do it?

reply to post by links234


Oh indeed we can, provided the Amendment process is followed in order for Congress to have the power to provide it.

It should be noted that under Article 1, Section 8

"The Congress shall have power to ... and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ..."

If healthcare is indeed an actual right under the general welfare clause, then Congress must provide it. Not just promote it via fostering compulsory purchases under penalty of law administered by an agency whose sole purpose is to collect and regulate taxes on income (which is the duty of Congress and not a bureau of a department that the President appoints the head of).

Originally posted by jrod
To promote the general welfare of the people was one of many reasons the constitution was established. Our health care system as it is now is failing the people and many of this country citizens realize that and are okay with the attempt to pass Obama care. Ironically many of people who oppose this bill the sames who got screwed by Bush's Big Pharma deal. American politics at it's finest.

The general welfare of the people of the United States generally falls within the police powers of the state. It does not have to do with health care for all.

This is also a deprivation of your rights without due process of law as described under the 5th amendment, which applies only to the federal government. Whether or not your right to not pay a "living" tax is a fundamental right is yet to be seen.

Clearly the Federal Government has invaded into the areas that are left to the state legislatures, i.e. the right to regulate for the public's health and welfare (if you disagree touch up on your Constitutional Law).

The thing is that all that is needed for Congress to legislate in an area is for the means to justify the ends. That's all. So, they would theoretically have power to legislate under this area based on their Taxation powers (as modified by the elastic clause).

So you're really only looking at two main arguments here:

1) This is a violation of our 5th amendment due process rights; and
2) This is a violation of the 10th amendment (which is reiterates federalism).

I think it will really depend on whether it is a violation of our due process, which will entirely depend on whether or not it is a fundamental right.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


What of the 9th? It has been successfully used to conclude that the government cannot regulate people using birth control that are married because it intruded on a person's right to privacy.

The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

source

Warning: Liberal websites full of history and facts.

Constitutionality of Mandatory Insurance

and

Could SCOTUS Be The Death Panel For Health Care Reform?

We'll just have to wait and see what the circuit courts say.