Health Care Bill and The Constitution

Thought many may want to read this before they vote Nov 2.

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed health care bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning!



Please take the time to read this and forward it out as you see fit. Thanks





The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas



AFTER HAVING READ THIS, PLEASE FORWARD....

If you don't care about our constitution, or your rights under it, just do nothing.

WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

And for each one opposed to it...I can find one that says it is constitutional:

articles.latimes.com...


The fact is that right now...it is "constitutional"...until the supreme court decides it isn't...it is.

It is also nice that he doesn't give any quotes or reference to the sections of the bill...he just rambles...so it is just his opinion...not fact based.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

Guess where your "expert" lost my attention?
Hint: It is not the terrible writing skills.

"…probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession." That’s wrong. H.R. 3200, the bill Connelly is writing about, continues "conscience" provisions in current law that allow health care workers to decline to provide abortions.

factcheck rebuts chain email

I think this constitutional lawyer needs to address that actual bill and not his fantasies.

Uh huh.
Sorry, but I don't put much stock in chain e mails.
The entire thing doesn't make sense. It seems to be tripe written before the actual bill was passed, maybe two years ago. Drive private insurance out of business? HARDLY.
This smellls of propaganda.
No sale.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And for each one opposed to it...I can find one that says it is constitutional:

articles.latimes.com...


The fact is that right now...it is "constitutional"...until the supreme court decides it isn't...it is.

It is also nice that he doesn't give any quotes or reference to the sections of the bill...he just rambles...so it is just his opinion...not fact based.

edit on 26-10-2010 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

yeah...nobody complains about the supreme court giving corporations the same constitutional rights as humans...but whoa!!! giving affordable healthcare to the masses...NOW THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


it's not the 'interstate' part of interstate-commerce that makes obamacare unconstitutional, it's the commerce part. i know that the feds can regulate manufacturing, etc, etc, as long as it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. but the individual mandate is basically a regulation of inaction. that's unprecedented. i just don't see how it's going to be found constitutional.

i just looked at this attorneys bio...working with the tea party and the proponents of the arizona immigration law. he is hardly a un-biased source.