Exclusive: Health Bill Gives Tyrannical Power to Civil Rights Division to Seize Evidence

Muffled Oar ^ | 3/25/2010 | Isaac Muzzey

[mudblood]

The Muffled Oar has learned that Obamacare health legislation gives the partisan and controversial Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice powers akin to a King. Not a single newspaper or journal has reported on this outrageous grant of executive power to the Justice Department. The corrupt Special Litigation Section inside the Civil Rights Division has been given the power to issue subpoenas without oversight by any court of law.

[mudblood]

Also from this post, "Congress doesn't even say who can serve the subpoenas. Normally the law says who has the power to serve subpoenas or process. Not anymore. Anyone Eric Holder picks is given the legal authority to serve the subpoena. Section 10606 (d)(2) dispenses with this ancient legal custom of Congress identifying who can serve subpoenas - instead - "any person or class of persons designated by the Attorney General or a designated officer or employee for that purpose" can do it."

[Man50D]

Clicking on the link yielded this message: “Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog The Muffled Oar does not exist.”

[sheikdetailfeather]

http://muffledoar.blogspot.com/

[Conscience of a Conservative]

1) The section of the Act in question does not mention the Civil Rights Division.

2) The section in question deals with the investigation of fraud.

3) Subpoenas are not without judicial oversight - the Act states that the enforcement mechanism (i.e., if you ignore the subpoena) for the subpoena is through the courts. So, the Justice Dept can issue a subpoena without court supervision (this is true of just about any subpoena), but cannot enforce it without the courts (also true about just about any subpoena). This is by no means out of the ordinary.

[mudblood]

Yep, that’s weird, sorry I guess I haven’t mastered cut and paste :) Here it is...
http://muffledoar.blogspot.com/2010/03/muffled-oar-exclusive-health-bill-gives.html

[mudblood]

1. The act refers to the civil rights division. Specifically, it refers to institutions and hospitals under various civil rights statutes. The special litigation section handles these particular matters.

2. It does not deal with the investigation of fraud. That is flat out wrong. It deals with investigations brought pursuant to powers already held by the civil rights division and special litigation section. Fraud is wholly unmentioned in this section of obamacare

3. It is not true that these health care providers are subject to pre-litigation subpoenas. It is also not true that this is common. Only “highly regulated industries”, which thankfully there are few, are subject to prelitigation subpoena power. Securities and nuclear energy are two such examples of highly regulated industries. On March 20 health care was not a highly regulated industry subject to constant oversight through federal subpoenas. On March 21, it was.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I apologize, I misread the statute re: fraud, didn't notice that this was under a sub-section of that that does not specifically deal with fraud.

Looking at the specific language again, though, it looks like when the language you are quoting says that subpoenas may be issued "to any institution that is the subject of an investigation under this Act," that the phrase "this Act" refers not to ObamaCare, but rather specifically to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. That Act, in turn, applies only to state-run (not privately-operated) facilities. So, while this section of the Act may be an unconstitutional overreach of Federal authority over the States, it is not nearly as expansive an increase in power as you are suggesting. This section does not subject privately-run doctor's offices/hospitals/etc to subpoena power.

[mudblood]

“Conscience of a Conservative”, I don’t know, this stuff you wrote seems kinda Ryan Reilly-esque, not really up to the normal standards of critical thinking we’ve come to love here at FR (ellipses...)

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I read the statute, as it is written, and explained how the blog post you linked to was mistaken. The blog post looks at the language that states that that this new subpoena power applies to "any institution that is the subject of an investigation under this Act" and assumes that "this Act" means "[Obamacare]."

However, if you look at the statute, the quoted language is in a section that states that "The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 3 the following:" In other words, the language quoted in the blog post is language that will be added to another law (the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act). In that context, when the text refers to "institution that is the subject of an investigation under this Act," it is clear that "this Act" does not refer to Obamacare, but rather to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

ObamaCare must be repealed. But I think the arguments in favor of repeal should be based on a good understanding of what is actually in the bill. I am just trying to explain my own understanding of what is actually in the bill. How does that show any lack of critical thinking?

[mudblood]

Ryan, no undue offense but you’re a total troll. All your posts pick apart conservative posters. In and of itself, free thought is encouraged, but yours isn’t honest, I good at this - been there, done that. Tell Tracy I said hi.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Citing the language of a statute makes me a troll? What is dishonest about citing the language of a statute? What is dishonest about providing hard facts?

I have no idea who Ryan Reilly (or Tracy, for that matter) are.