Is Obamacare Constitutional

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Is Obamacare Constitutional

    I scooped this from a face book post. thought it would incite some good discussion here...

    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, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare 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

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

    I scooped this from a face book post. thought it would incite some good discussion here...

    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, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare 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



    The supreme court ruled that it was. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    Dred Scott.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    It is clearly unconstitutional.  The Supreme court is out of their minds.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Dred Scott.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    Your right aca and slavery are clearly the same thing.you have no idea how to think for yourself. 

    One of the more concervative courts in history upheld aca as constitutional, its time to get over it.

     

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional


    Do you often arrive at the party a year or two too late?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

    [QUOTE]Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional



    Do you often arrive at the party a year or two too late?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Once the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax, that meant the bill violated Article I Section 7 of the United States Constitution.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    Your right aca and slavery are clearly the same thing.you have no idea how to think for yourself.

    No Mr. Crazy. The point is that the Dred Scott decision was not only morally repugnant, it was clearly unconstitutional. What lessons do you suppose we can draw from that? Hmmmm?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional



    Do you often arrive at the party a year or two too late?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Once the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax, that meant the bill violated Article I Section 7 of the United States Constitution.


     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Supreme Court may have another oppertunity to get it right this time. Here's an interesting case to follow that is working it's way up through the courts. 

    Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Tax-raising-Affordable-Care-Act-started-in-wrong-house-of-Congress

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    Interesting. I didn't know why you were referencing article 1 section 7 before...

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Your right aca and slavery are clearly the same thing.you have no idea how to think for yourself.

     

    No Mr. Crazy. The point is that the Dred Scott decision was not only morally repugnant, it was clearly unconstitutional. What lessons do you suppose we can draw from that? Hmmmm?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can't call someone else crazy after you make a stupid comparison between aca and the Dred Scott decision. In order of cases to have anything to do with eschother they have to be related, its referred to as legal precedent. So again I'm going to ask you how are these two cases the same. Does aca make it so African Americans can not be citizens because of theure heritage? This my friend is called false equivalency.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Heh, heh, heh ... these whackjobs will grasp at anything to maintain their ideological ignorance.

    I guess it doesn't matter that they're screaming at the wrong cloud.

    House bill 3200 was never voted on and is not the bill that became ACA.

    Maybe that "scholar" should read HR 3962, ya know the bill that was actually voted on. Although judging by the level of ignorance from the wingnuts around here I don't think it would matter much. Accuracy or even basic facts are not something the wingnuts like to associate themselves with.

     

    But hey, keep screaming at those clouds.....

     

    Freakin HILARIOUS!!!!



    The really hilarious thing isthat Obama is implementing something that isn't covered in EITHER version of the law.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

     

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Tax-raising-Affordable-Care-Act-started-in-wrong-house-of-Congress

     

     

    Interesting. I didn't know why you were referencing article 1 section 7 before...

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    Considering the Supremes couldn't see there way clear to follow the consititution on the question of the constitutionality of the ACA, what makes you think thay give two shots about a technicality like this?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    You can't call someone else crazy after you make a stupid comparison between aca and the Dred Scott decision. In order of cases to have anything to do with eschother they have to be related, its referred to as legal precedent. So again I'm going to ask you how are these two cases the same. Does aca make it so African Americans can not be citizens because of theure heritage? This my friend is called false equivalency.

    Airborne? Is that you Airborne?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]You can't call someone else crazy after you make a stupid comparison between aca and the Dred Scott decision. In order of cases to have anything to do with eschother they have to be related, its referred to as legal precedent. So again I'm going to ask you how are these two cases the same. Does aca make it so African Americans can not be citizens because of theure heritage? This my friend is called false equivalency.

     

    Airborne? Is that you Airborne?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    You compared the dred Scott case to aca, which is stupid. Therefore I must be airborne? Sound logic. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Your right aca and slavery are clearly the same thing.you have no idea how to think for yourself.

     

    No Mr. Crazy. The point is that the Dred Scott decision was not only morally repugnant, it was clearly unconstitutional. What lessons do you suppose we can draw from that? Hmmmm?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    SB,

    Maybe we can go down that road again and debate if the ACA is partially or wholly unconstitutional, but, to allude to it as "morally repugnant" IMO is going a little bit too far.

    It seems that is what you are saying since you posted "what lessons"...plural...can we draw from that.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    Might as well look back, see where this case came from as well as a summary of what it is about.

     

     

     

    Summary:
    Pacific Legal Foundation has launched a new constitutional cause of action against the federal Affordable Care Act. The ACA imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLF’s amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).

    The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLF’s existing lawsuit against the ACA, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    PLF’s Sissel lawsuit was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the ACA from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states, inNFIB v. Sebelius. As initially filed, PLF’s Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACA’s individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).

    So, as we will all remember, the NFIB and 26 states recently lost in the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius when the target was the individual mandate provision of the ACA. The argument was it violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause).

    Now we have this case (now amended after the above loss) which argues that the individual mandate constitutes a tax, and therefore needed to originate in the House, thereby it violates Article1, Section 7 of the Constitution (the Origination Clause).

    Got to give the GOP props for tenancity. This baby has already been birthed...on October 1st...yet they are still throwing anything at the wall they think just might stick.

    Hello GOP...Obamacare is already here. Yes, maybe the websites are not working perfectly yet but it is here.

    Actually the website thing is a good thing. So many people have logged on...or tried to log on...is a good thing. If people did not want Obamacare then noboby would have loggged on to the website(s).

     

     

     

     

     

                                                                

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    Might as well look back, see where this case came from as well as a summary of what it is about.

     

     

     

    Summary:
    Pacific Legal Foundation has launched a new constitutional cause of action against the federal Affordable Care Act. The ACA imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLF’s amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).

    The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLF’s existing lawsuit against the ACA, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    PLF’s Sissel lawsuit was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the ACA from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states, inNFIB v. Sebelius. As initially filed, PLF’s Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACA’s individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).

    So, as we will all remember, the NFIB and 26 states recently lost in the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius when the target was the individual mandate provision of the ACA. The argument was it violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause).

    Now we have this case (now amended after the above loss) which argues that the individual mandate constitutes a tax, and therefore needed to originate in the House, thereby it violates Article1, Section 7 of the Constitution (the Origination Clause).

    Got to give the GOP props for tenancity. This baby has already been birthed...on October 1st...yet they are still throwing anything at the wall they think just might stick.

    Hello GOP...Obamacare is already here. Yes, maybe the websites are not working perfectly yet but it is here.

    Actually the website thing is a good thing. So many people have logged on...or tried to log on...is a good thing. If people did not want Obamacare then noboby would have loggged on to the website(s).

     

     

     

     

     

                                                                

     

     


    Its a good (and IMHO) is a strong arguement, and case they have, Oral arguments are schedualed for this month Oct 28 I believe 

    http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=672

     

    http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=476

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    I have learned never to predict court outcomes. Never.

    The NFIB thought they had a good argument on the individual mandate violating the commerce clause.

    Now in this case the plaintiff believes it has a good case that the penalty being labeled a tax means the individual mandate violates the origination clause.

    I believe this is at most a technicality that can be simply corrected now that SCOTUS has ruled that the penalty is a tax.

                                                                

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    The only point that I'm making is that the court has made bad decisions in the past and will continue to make bad decisions. I thinnk that the ACA decision was a particularly poor one in that I do not believe that the federal government has the right to force anyone to purchase a product just as they do not have the right to compel anyone to provide a service. I think that calling the ACA a tax as the supreme court did was a huge stretch especially since the Obama administration was adamant that it wasn't a tax. It was just a bad decision all around.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Is Obamacare Constitutional

    nO, BUT THE "big o" DOESN'T CARE as thei vehicle is one of the decisions that will "TRANSFORM" THE  U S A   TO A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY !!!!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share