Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why is Obamacare Unconstitutional?
I'm A Pundit Too ^ | 6/16/2010 | Doug Ragan

Posted on 06/16/2010 8:29:24 AM PDT by TheNewPundit

This is an email I received today.

As a plaintiff on the Obamacare lawsuit, you’ve probably been asked why Obamacare is unconstitutional. So, I wanted to share a couple illustrations that explain why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

In 1919, the regulation of a drug – alcohol – required a Constitutional amendment to be ratified by the States. Yet, today we have the FDA which regulates every “prescription” drug and the DEA which regulates every “illegal” drug. We even have a “Drug Czar” on the President’s cabinet. So how did we go from requiring a Constitutional amendment to regulate just one drug, to multiple Federal agencies that regulate drugs without any Constitutional amendment whatsoever? The answer is that the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedent destroyed the limitations placed upon the Federal Government by our Founding Fathers.

(Excerpt) Read more at thenewpundit.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: healthcare; obama; obamacare; obamacareclassaction; socialisthealthcare; socilizedmedicine

1 posted on 06/16/2010 8:29:24 AM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

YES! Overturn Wickard v Filburn!


2 posted on 06/16/2010 8:32:04 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

Yah right. That supposed Commerce Clause which completely destroyed the USConst. ability to limit and enumerate the powers of the DC gangsters.


3 posted on 06/16/2010 8:37:42 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit
The article is quite correct. However, because the majority of Americans don't have a clue what the Constitution says and how it's been invalidated (and the implications of that being the federal government is invalid). So this is likely to remain buried on the sideline. I honestly hope it doesn't, but the progressives have been very effective in their systematic destruction of the US. They've been working at it for 100 year. Conservatives have been in response mode and have nothing near a 100 year plan like the progressives do.

It's easier to destroy something than to build and protect something.

4 posted on 06/16/2010 8:40:11 AM PDT by highlander_UW (Education is too important to leave in the hands of the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit
Do not believe the Supreme Court will revisit the commerce clause. The Court has a habit of ignoring the true meaning of our Constitution by evidence of its rulings.
5 posted on 06/16/2010 8:46:12 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit
Because MANY of the recipients of this ‘health care’ will not be making ANY contribution to the plan.

THAT is just for starters!!! Even IF there would be 150% of the population contributing, the services delivered and administered by a Government cannot be equal or preferable to privately delivered/administered health care.

6 posted on 06/16/2010 8:47:43 AM PDT by SMARTY ("What luck for rulers that men do not think." Adolph Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit
In 1919, the regulation of a drug – alcohol – required a Constitutional amendment to be ratified by the States.

No, it didn't.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

Repealing National Prohibition, David Kyvig, 1979, The University of Chicago Press

7 posted on 06/16/2010 8:56:14 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit; All
Join the Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to reverse Supreme Court precedent related to the Commerce clause and thereby overturn Obamacare. The Supreme Court has historically erred in its interpretation of the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. Recent Supreme Court rulings hint that they may be willing to take another look at Commerce clause precedent. Obamacare is so over reaching and so onerous, that it must either be repealed in Congress or struck down in the courts. We must fight this on both fronts. This is our historic opportunity to reverse America’s trend toward Socialism by overturning this unconstitutional precedent.

If you are a US citizen and agree with the goal of this lawsuit, please join us. If you have concerns about joining, please review the FAQs for more information. Every person we add strengthens the voice of "We the People".


OVER 10,000 AMERICANS JOIN LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE



8 posted on 06/16/2010 8:58:03 AM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson