[Favor Center]

Considering the federal government has no enumerated power to meddle in health care at the individual level, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Not that that argument has gotten any traction in decades.

[Favor Center]

Considering the federal government has no enumerated power to meddle in health care at the individual level, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Not that that argument has gotten any traction in decades.

[EBH]

This might help you out:

http://www.resistnet.com/video/know-the-truth-about-the-1

[Frantzie]

The one part forcing people to buy insurance should be enough. It would be nice if they find more sections and push for a fasttrack to SCOTUS to gut this thing.

[kaehurowing]

I have a problem with the one fining employers if any of their employees goes out and buys private insurance. I don’t see how you can hold someone liable for another person’s conduct, especially where I bet the employer does not have the ability to tell the employee not to do it.

[Nachoman]

I think this argument will get shot down. The gov’t mandates we buy a retirement and disability program called Social Security. Oh, I forgot, federal workers are exempt.

[NoobRep]

You cannot tax people solely as a means of controlling conduct that the government cannot otherwise reach through the commerce clause or any other constitutional provision.

I think there is definitely something to be said as well for violation of privacy rights and equal protection clause. After all, Amish and the idiots in Washington are also exempt from the bill.

[Man50D]

It’s Unconstitutional due to Article 1 Section 8 not specifically granting Congress the power to regulate health care. Therefore this is a power reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment. The people are not bound to comply with an unconstitutional act of Congress.

[ml/nj]

My guess is that almost all of it is unconstitutional. But I only looked at one page. That page says effectively that emergency rooms have to provide "interpreters" and "translation services." There is no way any Constitutional provision can allow Congress to force me or my business to accommodate people who do not speak my language. We would apparently need a Constitutional Amendment to force Governments to conduct their business exclusively in English, but it's okay to pass a law demanding that private businesses be able to conduct business in the language of any non-English speaking customer who knocks on their door. I don't think so.

ML/NJ

[GeronL]

Does it matter any more what is Constitutional? Is 90% of the FedGov constitutional?

All tax and spending bills must originate in the House.

right?

[HardStarboard]

Having a bureaucratic entity decide on what is the appropriate health procedures for me at any point in my life is a violation of my Civil Rights, and the right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.

[annieokie]

The one I have a problem with is: All the Kickback and payoff/earmarks. Something for some, but not for all.

That is discrimmination.

[Chet 99]

See this discussion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/03/19/DI2010031902926.html

[Hawthorn]

The health takeover bill will regulate insurance companies as public utilities, without allowing them to earn “reasonable” rates of return on invested capital. In this respect, the bill violates well-establised precedent that guarantees the utilities a constitutionally protected status for their rates of return. This unconstitutional characteristic of the health takeover legislation has been exhaustively analyzed by 0bama’s former collegue at the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein. See:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php

[SlaveNoMore]

are there other parts of the Bill which violate the Constitution and could be challenged in court?

You mean the abolishment of your 4th Amendment right restraint on government to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . ?

Apparently, the "fix" allows IRS agents to monitor your bank accounts and seize funds to pay fines.

But, of course, the 4th Amendment has already been tossed aside by the Patriot Act. But . . . you do feel safer don't you?

How about that under Article I, Section 7 that "[a]ll bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives . . . "?

The U.S. Constitution has been "deemed" irrelevant for quite some time. Once upon a time, only Congress could declare war, only Congress could coin money and regulate the value thereof and Congress could only enact legislation as defined in Article I, Section 8.

The only relevance the Constitution has to Congress critters is around election time or in getting a TV soundbite. Then, lip-service is given to the rulebook.

[JerseyHighlander]

Doctors might have a class action restraint of trade legal challenge.

[jongaltsr]

The bill itself is not constitutional.

The government can not own or operate any companies.

[jcsjcm]

Not only that but I believe that exempting themselves as well as anyone that works for them should also be unconstitutional! A law should include all....

I just feel that it should be anyway!

[chris_bdba]

I don’t think it is. From what I’ve read the unequal treatment of people who live in different states violates the equal protection clause.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maybe not. But if the court strikes down that mandate then the bill is pretty much gutted.