Why The Health care Bills are Unconstitutional

[Skull Pilot]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.

America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.

 

[Joe Steel]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

This is why we have a SCOTUS, which makes such determinations based not only on the Constitution, but on case law and something you've never heard of -- the Federalist Papers, which in much more detail lay out the framers' intentions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

Wrong as usual. The ENTIRE point of the Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 is to LIMIT the Federal Governments power and that of Congress specifically. Claiming that two words in a sentence somehow negates that is ignorant beyond belief. 2 words in a sentence that is not EVEN one of the powers listed.

 

[California Girl]

This is exactly why we must challenge every time someone regurgitate lies as truth. 'General welfare' does not give congress the power to do whatever the hell it wants.

 

[Joe Steel]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

This is why we have a SCOTUS, which makes such determinations based not only on the Constitution, but on case law and something you've never heard of -- the Federalist Papers, which in much more detail lay out the framers' intentions.

Oh, I've heard of them. In fact, unlike you, I know what they mean.

Here's your case law:

In retrospect, the principal positive contribution of the Butler majority is the principle, as restated by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), that the power to provide for the general welfare “is an independent grant of legislative authority, distinct from other broad congressional powers” (p. 247).

United States v. Butler: 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

This is why we have a SCOTUS, which makes such determinations based not only on the Constitution, but on case law and something you've never heard of -- the Federalist Papers, which in much more detail lay out the framers' intentions.

Oh, I've heard of them. In fact, unlike you, I know what they mean.

Here's your case law:

In retrospect, the principal positive contribution of the Butler majority is the principle, as restated by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), that the power to provide for the general welfare “is an independent grant of legislative authority, distinct from other broad congressional powers” (p. 247).

United States v. Butler: 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do? You didn't even READ the stuff your google search sent you to, before posting it!

 

[Joe Steel]

Oh, I've heard of them. In fact, unlike you, I know what they mean.

Here's your case law:

In retrospect, the principal positive contribution of the Butler majority is the principle, as restated by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), that the power to provide for the general welfare “is an independent grant of legislative authority, distinct from other broad congressional powers” (p. 247).

United States v. Butler: 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do?

Yes.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Oh, I've heard of them. In fact, unlike you, I know what they mean.

Here's your case law:

You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do?

Yes.

You didn't read.

 

[Joe Steel]

You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do?

Yes.

You didn't read.

Why do you say that?

 

[California Girl]

Oh, I've heard of them. In fact, unlike you, I know what they mean.

Here's your case law:

You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do?

Yes.

Really? or are you just playing dumb? Serious question, cuz you are either wrong or seriously, seriously stupid.

 

[Joe Steel]

You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do?

Yes.

Really? or are you just playing dumb? Serious question, cuz you are either wrong or seriously, seriously stupid.

I've cited the case law and given a fair construction of the Constitution. If you can't deal with that, you don't measure-up to the standards of reasoned debate. The problem is yours.

 

[chanel]

Although I would go with the latter, Joe is not alone in his stupidity. Ms Pelosi believes the constitution is a "non - issue".

What constitution? We don't need no stinkin constitution!

 

[Navy1960]

Several of the health care reform bills being considered by the 103rd Congress
contain mandates by the federal government that would require individuals,
employers, or a combination of both to purchase health insurance. The
imposition of an individual mandate, or a combination of an individual and an
employer mandate, would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The
appropriate budgetary treatment of such a policy, therefore, has not been
addressed. CBO 1994
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison

United Staes v. Morrison
Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Congress explicitly identified the sources of federal authority on which it relied in enacting §13981. It said that a "federal civil rights cause of action" is established "[p]ursuant to the affirmative power of Congress ... under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as under section 8 of Article I of the Constitution." 42 U.S.C. § 13981(a). We address Congress' authority to enact this remedy under each of these constitutional provisions in turn.

As we observed in Lopez, modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has "identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power." 514 U.S., at 558 (citing Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276-277 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971)). "First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce." 514 U.S., at 558 (citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 256 (1964); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114 (1941)). "Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities." 514 U.S., at 558 (citing Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911); Perez, supra, at 150). "Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, ... i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." 514 U.S., at 558-559 (citing Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 37). REHNQUIST, C.J., Opinion of the Court

United States v. Morrison

It's obvious as to the courts opinion as well as the CBO that the individual mandate and a number of cases that people CANNOT be mandated converage unless they have made the choice to be in interstate commerce, and CANNOT be compelled through a non-existant power to be involved in that commerce. Now people that are have signed up for healthcare insurance through a Federal plan can be regulated, but they have made the choice to sign up. Many seem to think, the General Welfare Clause gives the Federal Govt. unlimted powers to legislate and it does NOT, this Hamiltonion view of the constitution was rejected outright by the original framers and has only come into favor in recent times as a means to pass legislation that is knowingly beyond the powers of the Federal Govt. In fact, I would love to see a constitutional challenge on this issue as it would lose on several grounds in it's current form, if it were to stand one thing comes to mind. first the court would have to reverse Roe in order to accept this healthcare bill as constitutional. and second it would have to admit that previous decisions such as those dealing with busing, civil rights, and individual liberty were all in error and reverse them as well. Frankly, I find it somewhat amusing that the very same people who would stand in front of the Supreme Court and cry to the heavens about "the patriot act" and how it takes away individual liberty would be so eager to give it away all for short term comfort which they will not get in this bill.

 

[chanel]

Congress cannot force people to pay a "tax" aka mandate to a non public entity. And it is called a "tax" in the wording of the bill.

They need to start over.

 

[Truthmatters]

which is why the only way to truely solve the healthcare problem is to make it single payer.

You guys are starting to catch on huh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

So the government can mandate that you buy X pounds of tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach a year and then slap you with a punitive tax if you don't comply?

So the government can mandate that everyone buy a house with no more than 100 square feet per occupant or tax you if you don't comply?

So the government can tell you that you have to buy a new car every year and tax you if you don't comply?

An argument can be made that the three examples above are for the general welfare of the country and its citizens and any policy is permissible right?

You obviously believe you are utterly incapable of handling the responsibilities that come with liberty but your real flaw is that you believe no one else can handle said responsibility either.

 

[Meister]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Maybe this will clarify for those liberals on the left

 

[Navy1960]

The argument for individual mandates being constitutional generally always fall under the the "commerce clause" or the "general welfare clause" however what they do not take into consideration is that the "choice" of participating in interstate commerce comes before the regulation can begin, and therefor to compel a person to participate would be akin to passing laws that mandate the purchase of GM automobiles because as they are used in interstate commerce and for the most part owned by Amercans good for the General Welfare. No place in the constitution, is authority given to Congress to mandate the purchase of a private good or service or face a Federal fine, further, I will remind you all of something else,

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

If that tax is not applied to those that have health insurance and is only applied top those that don't it violates the 16th Amendment. As said in my last post, this bill is riddled with many constitutional issues, and to simply say, "well the general welfare clause gives Congress the authoity" or commerce clause, basically is admitting that the rest of the constitution is meaningless and that Congress has unlimited power to legislate any law they wish. Interesting that many Govt. throughout history would be very be green with envy over that, some come to mind, Ceasars Rome, Mao's China, Stalins USSR, just to name a few, personally, I don't think that is what the founders of this nation had in mind when they formed this nation, in fact the principle author of the constitution James Madison, was very clear on it's meanings and unlimited power was not one of them. Yes Hamilton was an advocate for that sort of thing, but was dismissed out of hand for such things as this sort of thing should be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Maybe this will clarify for those liberals on the left

Promote the general welfare does not mean or imply provide for the general welfare

If you want to promote the general welfare then let us all keep more of what we earn then we can decide what insurance to buy or not to buy.