Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

[skidder]

Here we go. More information is now trickling out of the recently passed 2,000 page Health Care Bill as citizens are allowed to actually read it.
I don't like the source of the article (rense) but the information is either correct or not and appears to me to be a legitimate quote. I'm sure this will be picked up by others in the days that follow.

http://www.rense.com/general88/reid.htm

"

(LPAC) -- Buried in the hundreds of pages of the bill Reid is ramming through the Senate, in Sec. 3403 dealing with the IMAC (or IMAB), which is a genocide panel equivalent to Hitler's 1939 "T4" policy of genocide, Harry Reid was criminal enough to write that no future Senate or House of Representatives would ever be allowed to question the Nazi policy of IMAC, or, exactly as he says there in his own words: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." Like Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich," Reid would throw the Constitution overboard to make the IMAC death-panel the unalterable law of the United States forever! This is nothing but a Hitler demand of Harry Reid. And if Obama goes through with that, and supports it, then Obama is dead meat. He'll be impeached. Because the US population now will not go with Hitler healthcare policies. Reid should resign now, out of embarrassment for pushing this through! Therefore, Lyndon LaRouche today demanded the immediate resignation of Harry Reid. "Because Harry Reid has now made himself a duplicate of Adolf Hitler, he's responsible for every Jew who was killed by Hitler," LaRouche said. "Harry Reid must take personal responsibility for every Jew killed by Hitler, by allowing this thing to go through. Every Jew who was killed by Hitler, Harry Reid is responsible for now! He must resign immediately in embarrassment, in abject apology to the American people for copying exactly the Hitler policy, which is so infamous. He has made a page for himself in infamy! "No one has the authority in the Senate to do that," LaRouche specified. "We demand the immediate resignation of Harry Reid on the basis of his having done this. This is unconstitutional; it's a violation of law, and, actually, it's an indictable offense. Harry Reid has committed an indictable offense in sneaking this thing through. "Harry Reid has committed a crime against humanity," LaRouche continued. "He has consciously condoned a crime against humanity, and this feature of the legislation which he rammed through, is a crime against humanity. And if he's got any honor left in him, he's going to publicly resign. That's from me. They need that from me," LaRouche added, "because there's nobody else with any guts in this damn situation, who's in a key leading position. Bill Clinton has certainly not got the guts to deal with this; I have to deal with it. www.Larouchepac.com"

[grapejelly]

Re: Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

Why was a constitutional amendment required for the feds to restrict alcohol?

Because the Constitution gives the federal government very limited enumerated powers.

This bill is unconstitutional because it would require a constitutional amendment to tell individual citizens where to purchase health care and insurance.

But the niceties of the constitution are always swept away in the political process. This is primarily my problem with Ron Paul, whom I love. Reforming from within is hopeless.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

This bill is unconstitutional because it would require a constitutional amendment to tell individual citizens where to purchase health care and insurance.

I don't think that this clause

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any ...

would require a constitutional amendment to change. Rather this clause is just the legalization of a Senate rule, which by the Senate rules requires a 2/3's vote of the Senate to change.

Of course, it should have also required a 2/3's rule of the Senate to enact this Senate rule change as well. Reid only had 60 votes, not 66. So it was a flagrant violation of the Senate Rules to pass this thing in the first place. Rules seem to apply only when those in power choose to apply them.

P.S. -- Oops. On further reading, I see that grapejelly was commenting on another aspect of the bill than what the original poster was commenting on.

[grapejelly]

Re: Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

P.S. -- Oops. On further reading, I see that grapejelly was commenting on another aspect of the bill than what the original poster was commenting on.

right. There are only a few enumerated rights of the federal government and the 10th amendment reads:

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.

The only powers that the federal government has to regulate individuals and states is the commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" aside from some specific powers such as patent and trademarks.

If I want to choose doctor A, or insurance company B, these are my choices that fall if anything under state regulation and not federal.

This ENTIRE idea is unconstitutional, quite clearly.

We are NOT a nation of laws. The federal government increases its powers and there is NO regulator on it. This is EXACTLY what the Founders feared most and why they did NOT make this country a democratic socialist republic as it is today.

[pianodoctor]

Re: Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

Although I truly understand the sentiment behind the concept that this legislation, and so many other things are unconstitutional- there is also the part of me that likes to play devil's advocate, so let me throw this out there and see if you folks can destroy my logic.

First of all I, like most people, am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. So while a lot our government does seem unconstitutional to me, I am not sure it is truly so since it is not a field of expertise for me.

What nags at me is that this is also a nation of lawyers, a large number of whom are looking to further their careers in various ways. I think we all have observed that at any given time there are scores of lawsuits and challenges being filed that various lawyers take on because of a high likelihood of press coverage (publicity and prestige), class action suits with massive payoff potential, etc. Not only does every valid excuse to create lawsuits get acted upon, but also a very large number of very questionable suits. The default is way too many lawsuits rather than too few.

It just seems to me that so many of what we like to call "unconstitutional" actions by the government would be swarmed over by large numbers of ambitious lawyers, if they were in fact unconstitutional or had any likelihood of being viewed that way. There are lawyers/firms everywhere looking to make names for themselves or increase prestige.

Is it possible that so much of what we believe to be unconstitutional is 'in law' not unconstitutional and it is more the case that laypeople like ourselves just don't understand the subtleties of constitutional law well enough to see that the government mostly has acted within the constitution and when they do not- they do get called out on it?

Feel free to tear my argument to shreds.

And please note I'm not trying to stimulate a discussion on what the framers intentions might have been, which is a rich and valid subject and can of course can be argued endlessly. I'm just talking about constitutional law as it is actually practiced. When we say that so many things are "unconstitutional" is it well and truly so from a legal standpoint?

[grapejelly]

Re: Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

Although I truly understand the sentiment behind the concept that this legislation, and so many other things are unconstitutional- there is also the part of me that likes to play devil's advocate, so let me throw this out there and see if you folks can destroy my logic.

First of all I, like most people, am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. So while a lot our government does seem unconstitutional to me, I am not sure it is truly so since it is not a field of expertise for me.

What nags at me is that this is also a nation of lawyers, a large number of whom are looking to further their careers in various ways. I think we all have observed that at any given time there are scores of lawsuits and challenges being filed that various lawyers take on because of a high likelihood of press coverage (publicity and prestige), class action suits with massive payoff potential, etc. Not only does every valid excuse to create lawsuits get acted upon, but also a very large number of very questionable suits. The default is way too many lawsuits rather than too few.

It just seems to me that so many of what we like to call "unconstitutional" actions by the government would be swarmed over by large numbers of ambitious lawyers, if they were in fact unconstitutional or had any likelihood of being viewed that way. There are lawyers/firms everywhere looking to make names for themselves or increase prestige.

Is it possible that so much of what we believe to be unconstitutional is 'in law' not unconstitutional and it is more the case that laypeople like ourselves just don't understand the subtleties of constitutional law well enough to see that the government mostly has acted within the constitution and when they do not- they do get called out on it?

Feel free to tear my argument to shreds.

And please note I'm not trying to stimulate a discussion on what the framers intentions might have been, which is a rich and valid subject and can of course can be argued endlessly. I'm just talking about constitutional law as it is actually practiced. When we say that so many things are "unconstitutional" is it well and truly so from a legal standpoint?

I am assuming you are an American citizen although I could be wrong.

History is purposely mistaught by government employees in schools today.

The Constitution is very, very clear and really easy to read. I quoted the passages in my post above that are pretty much all there is to it.

So is this an "interstate commerce" issue? My health care with my doctor in my state? I can't see how. Without stretching into absurdity the entire premise of the Constitution.

I encourage you to read and think this through. The 10th amendment is a bedrock of the *intent* as well as the specific written tenets in the Constitution.

All laws are supposed to be by the "several states" except those that are specifically enumerated in the federal Constitution. It's that simple.

As I pointed out, at least Congress had the good grace to realize a constitutional amendment was required to basically outlaw alcohol. Nowadays, they think they can do anything they want, without an amendment, but that is untrue and obvious from even a basic reading by any American citizen of the Constitution.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Unconstitutional Health Care Provisions

right. There are only a few enumerated rights of the federal government and the 10th amendment reads:

Why are you wasting your time reading that archaic document :confused::rolleyes::eek::eek:?