ObamaCare vs. the Constitution

NY Post ^ | January 6, 2010 | BETSY MCCAUGHEY

[Scanian]

The health bills in Congress rob you of your constitutional rights. Here are five provisions (of many) that fail the constitutionality test and reveal Congress's disrespect for the public:

* Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.

* A Senate health-bill amendment mysteriously allocates $100 million to an unnamed facility that "shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school" (Sec. 10502, p. 328-329). Why not name the facility?

[G-Man 1]

AMERICAS ENEMIES ARE THE DIMOCRAT PARTY AND ISLAM. No I did not spell dimocrat wrong.

[Man50D]

The Senate bill (pages 320-324) claims the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution gives Congress this authority. But for half a century, states have regulated health insurance. In fact, individuals are barred from buying insurance in any state except where they live, the antithesis of interstate commerce.

Any federal version of health care is unconstitutional on its face since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.

The founding fathers would not have bothered to list specific powers granted to Congress in article 1 Section 8 if the ICC in that section gave Congress unlimited powers. They would have only needed to write in the ICC and omit listing specific powers. Nor would they have written the 10th Amendment that begins with the wording "Any powers not delegated to the United States" if all powers were granted to Congress.

"

[Jack Black]

Ping

[NTHockey]

According to that eminent fistee, Diane Feinstein, the commerce clause gives Congress “ABSOLUTE” power.

WRONG! There is no such thing as absolute power in a republic. If Congress persists in defying the Constitution to their own nefarious purposes, they shall “reap the whirlwind”. Hosea 8.7

[maddog55]

Agree, Democrats are the domestic enemy.

[La Lydia]

Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.

At the heart of this bill, there is tyranny. This is an excellent post and an excellent article.

[Condor51]

*** According to that eminent fistee, Diane Feinstein, the commerce clause gives Congress “ABSOLUTE” power. ***

Good ole Di-Fi. This part of the article pertains to her..

In 1995, the high court again admonished Congress against using the commerce clause as a basis for expanded lawmaking, even when the purpose is as worthy as keeping handguns out of a school zone (US v. Lopez). The court ruled that Congress must stick to its enumerated powers and leave states to police school zones.

That was Di-Fi's pet law. And she was really ticked when SCOTUS overturned it. For years she had a screed on her senate webpage that said the ruling was 'unfair' as 'she meant well' and that law was 'for the children' so it should have stood. And that admonishment, it was from Justice Scalia. In the Majority Opinion he wrote:

'The Interstate Commerce Clause Doesn't Pertain to Everything'

So Di-Fi still hasn't learned a thing. Whatta maroon.

[orinoco]

She is not a maroon, she is a socialist. She just won’t let facts get in the way of her big government elitist socialist agenda like the rest of her ilk in her party.

[Condor51]

*** She is not a maroon, she is a socialist. She just won’t let facts get in the way of her big government elitist socialist agenda like the rest of her ilk in her party. ***

Oh I know she's a socialist. That goes without saying. But she's also dumb as a stump.

If my pet law was overturned and in the process I was basically personally admonished by the Supreme Court to knock it off, I think I'd have learned my lesson. Then in the future, I'd try a new way to get my socialist agenda implemented. Like a using a different clause in the Constitution.

But nope, not Di-Fi. "Hey, let's us the Commerce Clause. Maybe SCOTUS forgot about 'Lopez'."

[RU88]

Other reasons that I’m aware of to vehemently oppose this monstrosity:

1) The “Cadillac” coverage excise tax of 40% will eventually apply to all private insurance because the caps are not indexed to inflation.

2) Small business employers that will be penalized under these bills will either cut pay or workers to defer the cost of the penalties thereby reducing wages and employment opportunities as well as reducing tax revenue.

3) The fact that if this passes it will not be fully implemented for another four years has as much to do with the hidden costs of this as it does with the next presidential election. Taxes have to be collected for a full ten years to pay for the costs of six. A recipe for fiscal disaster.

4) And what about the costs to states for providing Medicaid to the millions of new enrollees envisioned by the man child? How does Owebie expect many states already teetering of verge of insolvency to come up with, in some cases billions of additional tax dollars necessary to cover these individuals?

5) Does anybody truly believe that Medicare is going to cut by $500,000,000,000 over the next ten years. I for one do not.

So what do we end up with? Most people have insurance, fewer people have jobs, and those that do will make less to compensate for the employer costs brought on by this bill. Seniors WILL be denied coverage while illegal aliens will be welcomed with open arms.

Sound public policy? I don’t think so!

[mo]

“Sound public policy? I don’t think so!”

Makes sense if you’re a Democrat!!!

[Hawthorn]

>> I did not spell dimocrat wrong <<

I prefer Dhimmi-c-rat.

[GailA]

FR link to the phone numbers for many senators local offices...just in case their DC voice mail is full.

Link senators local office phone numbers

[orinoco]

Good Point!