It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Constitutionality of Obama's health care bill

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:36 PM
I want to start a discussion about the constitutionality of the health care bill. I’ve heard plenty of arguing in other threads about if the bill is good or bad. Now let’s discuss if it’s constitutional. My understanding of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that if the “power” was not spelled out in the constitution to be federally controlled that the “power” remained the right or “power” of the states. I’m not going to sit here and restate the obvious regarding the U.S. Constitution not having any references to providing healthcare. What I want to know from the supporters of this bill is; what is your understanding of the constitution that leads you to believe the bill is constitutional. As I see it this bill is in violation of the 10th Amendment, at minimum. I have included the 10th Amendment below for those that don’t know it.

10th Amendment

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.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:18 PM
Here is a link to an article in the San Francisco Examiner (surprisingly nuetral for the liberal paper) about the constitutional challenges of the bill...

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:25 PM
Good post but there's another aspect of this bill aside from the 10th amendment...can the government force a person to purchase something with the threat of a fine or jail time if they don't? I don't think that the "commerce clause" will cover this.

But my apologies if I'm derailing your wanted to discuss the 10th amendment.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by bowlbyville

No apologies needed...I hope for this thread to discuss all of these aspects. I agree that one of the challenges is that this bill forces someone to buy something. I've heard people equate it to car insurance, but I see the two subjects as very different.

One of the things I'm seeing as I do more research is that the commerce clause argument usually placed regulations on the businesses, not the people. That point in and of itself will be a rather new argument of the commerce clause I think.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:16 PM
One thing we have to ask ourselves is are we property of the State or do we belong to something else? If we are not property of the State then we have the right to not purchase healthcare as an unalienable right.

Of course one could argue that if you take any form of government subsidy then you become property of the State. Also if you join the armed services you are U.S. government property. I wonder what other people's take is on this.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:14 AM
Not only is the bill mandating citizens to purchase a service, but those services are provided through private corporations.

The bill doesn't even address the issue of not being able to purchase across state lines. I mean, how can a Federal bill mandate purchases of a private service that is bound by state lines? I'm so confused.

Even with reimbursement, via federal vouchers, I don't see how this can be legal. Think about it. If this was about providing health care for all citizens, then what's the point of vouchers? Oh, I got it! It's because they need the vouchers to pay the private corporations.

So, who is this bill for again? The private insurance companies or the citizens?

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:32 AM
Congress is no doubt will be using two clauses to back up their claim that this bill, the requirement of purchasing insurance and allowing the IRS to administer (police) the new system. Those clauses will be the Commerce Clause and the Welfare Clause.

The Peoples' Weapon of Choice: The 9th Amendment

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

Properly applied, the Citizens of the United States could equally and with much greater power wield both the 10th and the 9th Amendments as both those Amendments directly state the People as holders of rights, and holders of Self-Governance.

The 10th Amendment, which was to ensure that most of the political power and governing were to have taken place at the State level and below, is instrumental in understanding the 9th Amendment.

Since there is no specific power delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution to be able to force a private citizen to enter into a contract with fear of penalty, that power is thus delegated upon the States.

While I do not know any of the States' Constitutions, I will be vague and generalize. Majority of States within the Union also do not take the mantle to punish their citizen's by forcing them into a contract or face penalty, just because you are living.

Thus, since the Constitution of the United States holds no power and the States have not taken up the issue themselves, that power is delegated to the People to decide and chose for themselves.

Enter the 9th Amendment. There is no mention of Health as a right, so it is to be retained by the People as their own. This does not mean that the Federal Government now has the authority to dictate Health and recognize Health as a right, it means the exact opposite.

That power, as protected by the 9th Amendment, lies directly with the People. You, as a private citizen have the full power of the 9th Amendment to levy claim that your personal right to purchase (or not purchase in this case) a private good and/or service is being disparaged and denied.

Therefore the bill as signed, in which private citizens are to be required to purchase a service, not by choice, but by pure fact that you reside upon United States soil, is unconstitutional via the 9th Amendment.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by ownbestenemy]

new topics

top topics


log in