Suing the federal government

[PixieStix]

We have recourse.

Our 5th amendement rights will be violated, under the healthscare scam of a so called bill. When in reality it is a unadulterated take over of our rights as private citizens

Suing Federal Government

We cannot allow this unconstitutional behavior to go on any longer




[SIZE=+1]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/SIZE]
I am sure someone will point out that I am wrong.

A constitutional discussion would be good

 

[Luissa]

I want to know what in the 5th amendment makes national health care unconstitutional?

 

[PixieStix]

I want to know what in the 5th amendment makes national health care unconstitutional?

Forcing me to take my money and buy something I may not want. Or forcing me to take my money AKA my private property to pay a fine or face jail time?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I want to know what in the 5th amendment makes national health care unconstitutional?

Forcing me to take my money and buy something I may not want. Or forcing me to take my money AKA my private property to pay a fine or face jail time?

Oh but the uninsured have every right to force ME to pay for their healthcare expenses?????

Sorry - you make a very poor argument

 

[Navy1960]

Interesting question, when applied to the mandate portion of healthcare. One could argue that mandating someone purchase healthcare or pay a penalty for not doing so is depriving them of "liberty" in that they are no longer affored the ability to make that choise for themselves. I've said this many times, and will say it here, the healthcare reformers no matter how well meaning lost me long ago when this mandate came about and with the creation of a "public option" when we already have one that is almost bankrupt. It really makes no sense at all to create a whole new program to offer healthcare insurance when you have one in place that if fixed and made available to those that need it and want it would easily provide the available healthcare insurance for those that want it. This current healthcare bill faces many hurdles to become a reality when the proper application of real solutions could have made life much better for everyone.

 

[Mr. Capitalism]

In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protections as the basis for refusing to file a required federal income tax return. The Court stated: "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making[,] he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld."

From the indisputable Wiki...

 

[PixieStix]

I want to know what in the 5th amendment makes national health care unconstitutional?

Forcing me to take my money and buy something I may not want. Or forcing me to take my money AKA my private property to pay a fine or face jail time?

Oh but the uninsured have every right to force ME to pay for their healthcare expenses?????

Sorry - you make a very poor argument

Uh no, they do not have that right

sorry, but you misread and took my thread out of context

 

[Luissa]

I think passing a law in congress is due procress of law. And by your point not paying your taxes and then being fined for that would be unconstitutional also plus they never said you would get jail time but hey if it makes your case more dramatic.
So I guess my state has been breaking the constitution for years because you can be fined if you don't have car insurance. Your strawman arguement doesn't really work, sorry.

 

[Luissa]

Interesting question, when applied to the mandate portion of healthcare. One could argue that mandating someone purchase healthcare or pay a penalty for not doing so is depriving them of "liberty" in that they are no longer affored the ability to make that choise for themselves. I've said this many times, and will say it here, the healthcare reformers no matter how well meaning lost me long ago when this mandate came about and with the creation of a "public option" when we already have one that is almost bankrupt. It really makes no sense at all to create a whole new program to offer healthcare insurance when you have one in place that if fixed and made available to those that need it and want it would easily provide the available healthcare insurance for those that want it. This current healthcare bill faces many hurdles to become a reality when the proper application of real solutions could have made life much better for everyone.

why hasn't anyone sued over having to have car insurance and being fined if they don't?

 

[ihopehefails]

We have recourse.

Our 5th amendement rights will be violated, under the healthscare scam of a so called bill. When in reality it is a unadulterated take over of our rights as private citizens

Suing Federal Government

We cannot allow this unconstitutional behavior to go on any longer




[SIZE=+1]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/SIZE]
I am sure someone will point out that I am wrong.

A constitutional discussion would be good

I agree with your intent but I think the 5th amendment applies to being criminally prosecuted for a crime and that you can't have things taken from you without due process that may occur because of your prosecution such as the police ceazing your car because they charged you with drug possession before they find you guilty.

I think a much simpler argument would be just to say that the constitution grants the congress no authority to create a national health care bill.

 

[PixieStix]

Interesting question, when applied to the mandate portion of healthcare. One could argue that mandating someone purchase healthcare or pay a penalty for not doing so is depriving them of "liberty" in that they are no longer affored the ability to make that choise for themselves. I've said this many times, and will say it here, the healthcare reformers no matter how well meaning lost me long ago when this mandate came about and with the creation of a "public option" when we already have one that is almost bankrupt. It really makes no sense at all to create a whole new program to offer healthcare insurance when you have one in place that if fixed and made available to those that need it and want it would easily provide the available healthcare insurance for those that want it. This current healthcare bill faces many hurdles to become a reality when the proper application of real solutions could have made life much better for everyone.

why hasn't anyone sued over having to have car insurance and being fined if they don't?

I am not sure that people have not at least tried to sue

 

[PixieStix]

We have recourse.

Our 5th amendement rights will be violated, under the healthscare scam of a so called bill. When in reality it is a unadulterated take over of our rights as private citizens

Suing Federal Government

We cannot allow this unconstitutional behavior to go on any longer




[SIZE=+1]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/SIZE]
I am sure someone will point out that I am wrong.

A constitutional discussion would be good

I agree with your intent but I think the 5th amendment applies to being criminally prosecuted for a crime and that you can't have things taken from you without due process that may occur because of your prosecution such as the police ceazing your car because they charged you with drug possession before they find you guilty.

I think a much simpler argument would be just to say that the constitution grants the congress no authority to create a national health care bill.

But not violating my property and my right to purchase what I choose!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Forcing me to take my money and buy something I may not want. Or forcing me to take my money AKA my private property to pay a fine or face jail time?

Oh but the uninsured have every right to force ME to pay for their healthcare expenses?????

Sorry - you make a very poor argument

Uh no, they do not have that right

sorry, but you misread and took my thread out of context

No - what happened is that YOU failed to understand the consequences of your statement.

I do understand them.

Everyone pays for the uninsured one way or another. We are doing it now whether you realize it not. And since so many of the uninsured use the ER for their primary care because it is a venue from which they cannot be turned away - we are paying for their care in the least cost-effective way possible.

Some folks are so wedded to their rhetoric they lose sight of the real issue.

 

[PixieStix]

I happen to think that if enough of us bring lawsuits against the federal government , we can stop all the uncontitutional behavior of said government, and the huge bureaucracy, that this government is creating.

Are some of you going to go down without a fight in the world?

If the Constitution recognizes the right of property and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guaranties which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the government.

 

[PixieStix]

Please excuse my ignorance on the subject, and excuse me, for leaving this thread, but I have an appointment with a Constitutional attorney

I am sure, she will enlighten me

 

[asaratis]

Interesting question, when applied to the mandate portion of healthcare. One could argue that mandating someone purchase healthcare or pay a penalty for not doing so is depriving them of "liberty" in that they are no longer affored the ability to make that choise for themselves. I've said this many times, and will say it here, the healthcare reformers no matter how well meaning lost me long ago when this mandate came about and with the creation of a "public option" when we already have one that is almost bankrupt. It really makes no sense at all to create a whole new program to offer healthcare insurance when you have one in place that if fixed and made available to those that need it and want it would easily provide the available healthcare insurance for those that want it. This current healthcare bill faces many hurdles to become a reality when the proper application of real solutions could have made life much better for everyone.

why hasn't anyone sued over having to have car insurance and being fined if they don't?

One cannot be forced to buy a car...yet!

 

[Navy1960]

Interesting question, when applied to the mandate portion of healthcare. One could argue that mandating someone purchase healthcare or pay a penalty for not doing so is depriving them of "liberty" in that they are no longer affored the ability to make that choise for themselves. I've said this many times, and will say it here, the healthcare reformers no matter how well meaning lost me long ago when this mandate came about and with the creation of a "public option" when we already have one that is almost bankrupt. It really makes no sense at all to create a whole new program to offer healthcare insurance when you have one in place that if fixed and made available to those that need it and want it would easily provide the available healthcare insurance for those that want it. This current healthcare bill faces many hurdles to become a reality when the proper application of real solutions could have made life much better for everyone.

why hasn't anyone sued over having to have car insurance and being fined if they don't?

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.

Theres your answer, states are full within their rights should it's citizens so choose to require you to pay for the priviledge of driving a car. As a driving is NOT a right it's a priviledge that is granted by the individual state they are well within their rights to make such laws to regulate it's use. By that logic what your saying is that being born now is a privledge and as such a state as the right to regulate your use.

 

[rightwinger]

I want to know what in the 5th amendment makes national health care unconstitutional?

Forcing me to take my money and buy something I may not want. Or forcing me to take my money AKA my private property to pay a fine or face jail time?

The government collects taxes from everyone and uses them to fund items that are for the good of all. Just because you do not want your tax money to go for some things you do not use does not make in unconstitutional. You elect officials to represent you in government. Those officials make decisions on how your money is spent.
Just because you do not want money to go for something doesn't mean your rights are violated.

I still don't see any tie to the fifth amendment

 

[PixieStix]

I want to know what in the 5th amendment makes national health care unconstitutional?

Forcing me to take my money and buy something I may not want. Or forcing me to take my money AKA my private property to pay a fine or face jail time?

The government collects taxes from everyone and uses them to fund items that are for the good of all. Just because you do not want your tax money to go for some things you do not use does not make in unconstitutional. You elect officials to represent you in government. Those officials make decisions on how your money is spent.
Just because you do not want money to go for something doesn't mean your rights are violated.

I still don't see any tie to the fifth amendment

I am not speaking of taxes persay, but am speaking of forcing this healthcare bill down our throats, and forcing me and you to one way or another pay for the uninsured and the uninsured pay fine and face jailtime for lack of insurance. It is insane and unconstitutional no matter how you cut it.

I would appreciate someone who knows the Constitutional amendemnt that IS being violated

 

[Navy1960]

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

Here Pixie is a good article that may be helpful to you and is well thought out on that question.