oreo
Gold Member
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.