Posted on 03/01/2010 8:30:04 AM PST by Fester2010
Behind the smokescreen of congressional debate over proposed healthcare legislation is an undeniable yet unspoken fact. That is simply that federal healthcare is illegal. It is not authorized or permitted by the United States Constitution. The federal government does not have legal authority to take over the healthcare industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamainwonderland.com ...
Unconstitutionality was NEVER brought up at last week’s Healthcare Clown Convention in Washington, not by the commies or by our so called Republicans . . . not once . . . you’d think somebody would have brought up that issue.
95% of the spending by the Congress is illegal.
Neither is taking over car companies.
"The term I use to describe when the government deviates from its legal jurisdiction and authority, is ‘Precedents in Illegality’. Just as legal precedents build upon prior law and court rulings to strengthen their legality, ‘Precedents in Illegality’ do the opposite. Instead of building upon prior law, they build upon prior deviations of the law. Essentially, the government deviates from its legitimate authority, in other words it breaks the law, and it continues to do so over a long enough periods that people accept the tradition of illegality as law. This new tradition of illegality becomes the bases for further deviations from the written law."
The Constitution is largely irrelevent. Decades of leftist subversion has rendered it so. The constitutionality of legislation is a subject rarely, if ever, broached in the debates over such things as the health care travesty or the cap-n-tax abomination. And when courts take this up they don’t much get into the actual Constitution but instead rely upon legal precedents based as often on not on decisions arrived at by consulting “penumbras” emanating from our “living” Constitution.
So when has Constitutionality EVER mattered to the left?
Has that ever stopped congress from passing legislation?
They did not have the constitutional authority to take over GM auto maker eiter.... but they did that pretty quick- without a shot fired.
FYI- I went shopping for a new car this weekend- they tried to show me a used Chevy- I told them I refused to buy a Government motors car- they said they are hearing a LOT of that and had already lowered the price of the car by $2000. They are afraid they are going to have to sell it at a loss (it was a trade in) and are re-thinking GM trade-in cars.
GREAT WORK OBAMBI!
I was a chevy man all my life- now FORD looks awful good- or even Toyota
I’m not in favor of ObamaCare, but I think this argument is weak. The constitution is a pretty short document, and it simply enumerates the powers of the different branches of government, especially in relation to each other. It doesn’t go into great detail regarding all the possible actions of each of the branches of government. The judicial branch is (or should be) very limited, because its purpose is to interpret the law. The executive and legislative branches have a fairly wide latitude in their possible actions so long as they do not violate the constitution itself. As examples, the constitution does not specifically state that there should or should not be an Environmental Protection Agency or a Department of Energy. The fact that these departments are not specifically mentioned in the constitution is not a sufficient reason to say that they’re unconstitional, you would have to prove that the creation of these agencies somehow violated the provisions of the constitution.
The democrates are determined to lower the cost of health care, no matter how much they have to raise taxes to do it.
Me too! I’ll be buying Ford next time I buy a new vehicle.
Post/thread BUMP!
I have seen no indication that Obama and his cohorts give one good damn about the Constitution
I think the tenth ammendment is pretty clear. If that were the case they wouldn’t of had to pass the 16th amendment before congress could levy income taxes.
Constitution??? Why can’t they just pass a law overriding the Constitution?? just ask any Public School Student, and they will insist Federal Law trumps those silly Suggestions found in the Constitution that they have never read.
“I think the tenth ammendment is pretty clear. If that were the case they wouldn’t of had to pass the 16th amendment before congress could levy income taxes.”
Like it or not, there is judicial precedence in interpreting Article 1 to give the legislative branch very broad powers. Basing his ruling on the necessary and proper clause, Chief Justice John Marshall (in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819) indicated that congress has sweepingly broad powers (known as implied powers) not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The 16th Amendment was created to overcome a ruling in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which limited the Congress’s authority to levy an income tax.
I don’t think that even the most conservative of the justices (Antonin Scalia) would agree with you that Obama’s healthcare plan is unconstitutional.
There are substantial arguments for the unconstitutionality of the so-called Individual Mandate, not to mention the whole problem of addressing healthcare generally from a federal level. For a brief but useful dissection of this and other flimsy excuses for the lawless federal power grab known as Obamacare, please see the following summary analysis at Heritage:
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm0049.cfm
As for the implied powers of the “necessary and proper” clause,” as the article points out, no such power can stand on it’s own, but can only be viewed as having a support role under one of the other enumerated powers. It is not a “catch-all,” as in “in case we forgot something.” It is a “we will leave the precise implementation of the above enumeration-restricted powers to later legislators.”
Logic alone would be sufficient to support this view. If the point of the Constitution is, as Obama has admitted, a statement of negative rights, i.e., limitations preventing the federal from impinging on individual liberties by growing wildly outside well-defined fences, then it would make no sense to include language which inadvertently blows away all those fences. The exceptions, as they say, would swallow the rule, and in statutory interpretation this is a clear guide to err on the side of narrow rather than expansive interpretation.
“As for the implied powers of the “necessary and proper” clause,” as the article points out, no such power can stand on it’s own, but can only be viewed as having a support role under one of the other enumerated powers. It is not a “catch-all,” as in “in case we forgot something.” It is a “we will leave the precise implementation of the above enumeration-restricted powers to later legislators.””
Your argument sounds good, but this horse already left the barn generatations ago. If you say Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates Article 1, then wouldn’t the same be true for almost every other program enacted since FDR brought out the New Deal? Not a bad idea actually to quash this and other programs because they’re unconstitutional, but it just ain’t gonna happen. It’s more effective to attack Obamacare based on the fact that it’s a really bad idea for the U.S. economy and for the health of most Americans than on the argument that it’s unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.