Health Care Bill Violates 4th Amendment Search & Seizure: Lawsuits should be easy $$$

[oreo]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

Well, you are going to have to get a health screening, right? No company will insure you without one. Pre-existing conditions and all. REMEMBER......if you DON'T, the IRS has the authority to arrest you for non-compliance. With the law mandate, the doctor is acting as a government agent, in particular if you are forced to use a government health clinic for that screening (likely). So, I have a choice: A) Go to jail or pay fine for not complying with gov't mandate, or, B) Submit to a WARRANTLESS search of my person, without probable cause of any violation of any law, by a gov't agent, thus violating my 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches without consent or probable cause.

BUT WAIT.....before you liberal Obama lovers cry "BUT YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH" you are mistaken. Coercion can NEVER be an element used by the gov't to gain consent for a search or seizure. AND in this scenario, the fine or arrest for lack of health insurance is a threat and coercion to force compliance with the warrantless search of my person.

And before you liberals begin to whine about "That only applies to cops and the FBI, not doctors" you are again wrong. Read up on your law enforcement deputization statutes. When ANY citizen is requested by any law enforcement agency to provide assistance with enforcement of a law, that person is acting as a "deputy" and gov't agent. It's why a cop can't get his civilian buddy to search you illegally then claim "he's not a cop". And since the IRS is enforcing this, they are a LEO agency, enforcing the mandate for insurance, requesting doctors complete the health screening to make you eligible to purchase insurance. And you are being coerced into compliance with the unlawful search of your person.

Did the Obama Admin think this through? I'm sure they did. I'm sure they see people as too dumb to find this loophole out or to a lawsuit. Or maybe not. Maybe they were in such a rush the past year to pass this, and were looking at everything except the 4th amendment, since the 4th is almost exclusively a law enforcement amendment, and they made the mistake of tasking the IRS with enforcement.

But I know this: I'll be the first in line to file this lawsuit. And they may settle for far less than I ask, and I'll then be like you Obama folks: Living off the government.

So, there you have it boys. 4th amendment. Unlawful search and seizure. The way out.

While I would like to believe your theory is right--I think the only way to get this health care tossed out--is exactly what 14 states are doing right now. By pursuing it under the 10th Admendment of the U.S. Constitution--under the commerce clause.

And I believe the federal government has over reached their constitutional powers by mandating that people purchase health care.

 

[jreeves]

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

Keep us informed on how your lawsuit goes. Ask the Mods to make it a sticky.

Will do. You guys should read up on some state and federal Supreme Court law relating to the 4th amendment. Cases have been won for far lesser violations than this. I'm shocked this loophole was missed by Obama Inc. They are wide open for lawsuits.

Umm..violation of the 4th amendment...try violation of a penumbra of the US constitution...an invasion of privacy, something SCOTUS has already recognized. As well as due process.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

Well, you are going to have to get a health screening, right? No company will insure you without one. Pre-existing conditions and all. REMEMBER......if you DON'T, the IRS has the authority to arrest you for non-compliance. With the law mandate, the doctor is acting as a government agent, in particular if you are forced to use a government health clinic for that screening (likely). So, I have a choice: A) Go to jail or pay fine for not complying with gov't mandate, or, B) Submit to a WARRANTLESS search of my person, without probable cause of any violation of any law, by a gov't agent, thus violating my 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches without consent or probable cause.

BUT WAIT.....before you liberal Obama lovers cry "BUT YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH" you are mistaken. Coercion can NEVER be an element used by the gov't to gain consent for a search or seizure. AND in this scenario, the fine or arrest for lack of health insurance is a threat and coercion to force compliance with the warrantless search of my person.

And before you liberals begin to whine about "That only applies to cops and the FBI, not doctors" you are again wrong. Read up on your law enforcement deputization statutes. When ANY citizen is requested by any law enforcement agency to provide assistance with enforcement of a law, that person is acting as a "deputy" and gov't agent. It's why a cop can't get his civilian buddy to search you illegally then claim "he's not a cop". And since the IRS is enforcing this, they are a LEO agency, enforcing the mandate for insurance, requesting doctors complete the health screening to make you eligible to purchase insurance. And you are being coerced into compliance with the unlawful search of your person.

Did the Obama Admin think this through? I'm sure they did. I'm sure they see people as too dumb to find this loophole out or to a lawsuit. Or maybe not. Maybe they were in such a rush the past year to pass this, and were looking at everything except the 4th amendment, since the 4th is almost exclusively a law enforcement amendment, and they made the mistake of tasking the IRS with enforcement.

But I know this: I'll be the first in line to file this lawsuit. And they may settle for far less than I ask, and I'll then be like you Obama folks: Living off the government.

So, there you have it boys. 4th amendment. Unlawful search and seizure. The way out.

this one is a keeper

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

Its not a fine, its a tax. The government has authority to tax income by the 16th amendment. If you don't want to prove you have health insurance, then you can pay the tax. Simple as that. Go ahead, sue all the fuck you want, you have no damages, you'll lose.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment.

...

.

Don't waste your time or that of the courts. I hear you have to be mentally competent to have standing here.

 

[jreeves]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment.

...

.

Don't waste your time or that of the courts. I hear you have to be mentally competent to have standing here.

Dipshit, mentally incompetent people can sue, they can't always be held criminally responsible but they can sue. Damn your ignorance is broadcast for all to see.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mentally-retarded-sue-charging-condo-discriminated/46455/

 

[Avatar4321]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

First, you need standing. You've got none.

Second, there is a disconnect between premise 2 & 3 of your analysis. See if they have to cover pre-existing conditions, there is no point to screen you for the conditions. They would have to cover you no matter the results, so why would they?

The only reason insurance companies screen now is because they can make choices dependent on the results of those examination. If they can't make choices, there is no point to the examination.

Third, violations of the 4th amendment dont result in monetary compensation. You argue the 4th amendment when you want to protest an invalid arrest/seizure of property so you can suppress evidence in a criminal trial. There is no evidence to supress. Hence, 4th amendment will do absolutely nothing for you. If there was evidence to supress, the evidence would be supressed and the State/Fed would have to prove their case without that evidence.

You wouldn't recieve money. At best you would get the charges dismissed. At worst you'll be convicted, but give the Prosecuting attorneys a more difficult time proving their case.

The route to beat the bill is the route where the States challenge the Federal Governments jurisdiction.

 

[Avatar4321]

Will do. You guys should read up on some state and federal Supreme Court law relating to the 4th amendment. Cases have been won for far lesser violations than this. I'm shocked this loophole was missed by Obama Inc. They are wide open for lawsuits.

I dont think they were that worried about people supressing evidence when they past the bill.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh, yeah, because I'm sure a college sophomore in his dorm reviewing his professors notes knows more about the 4th amendment than the people who use that amendment every day of their life, right?

Thanks for the counter argument that proved my facts wrong by the way.

So you violate the 4th amendment regularly? I can't imagine it would come up in law enforcement unless a defense attorney challenged a law enforcement official on violating it.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

no one is settling anything with you

No kidding.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

no one is settling anything with you

You don't know much about gov't lawsuits, do you? Settling is far cheaper and less of a PR nightmare than a 2 year civil trial.

And how many civil trials do you know of that involve the 4th amendment?

 

[Avatar4321]

So why if they cover preexisting conditions would they require a screen to see if you had any??????? We are checking for what we are going to cover whether you do or do not have preexisting conditions........

They wouldn't. Which is one of many flaws already pointed out.

 

[Avatar4321]

Umm..violation of the 4th amendment...try violation of a penumbra of the US constitution...an invasion of privacy, something SCOTUS has already recognized. As well as due process.....

So you want to make a substantive due process 14th amendment argument. Interesting idea. That one might actually hold up though i completely dislike the caselaw its based on.

That be ironic. Progressive caselaw destroying the Progressive movements greatest legislative victory.

 

[Avatar4321]

this one is a keeper

More reasonable than some of the things you've said... but then that's not saying alot.