Constitutional Crisis
 

The Obama Health Care Bill & Dangers to the Constitution





Michael Connelly (http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/ ) is a Constitutional Lawyer and has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the effects on our Constitution. It's a broader picture than just health care reform.



Once this sort of thing happens, it will be irreversible.



THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL


Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

Th e Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals.Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.



The paragraph below is really frightening

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:



http://www.archives.gov/exhibits /charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights:



http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ch...nscript.html%20



There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas






Michael Connelly


Author of "The Mortarmen" www.trafford.com/04-2710
and "Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch"



I also teach law courses via the Internet through colleges and universities worldwide. To find a college or university near you, go to Education To Go's Web site at www.ed2go.com .

Doesn't Michael Connelly also teach navigation to Swift boat sailors? :confused:

Irish,

An interesting article. While I must concede some points to Mr. Connelly, I respectfully disagree with others.


This is highly probable.



Of course it does. All health care systems ration their services. Some do it by price, others do it by time. Another way of saying this is that in some health care systems, you must pay more to receive some services, while in others, you must wait longer. We are all going to die. The demand for interventions that might postpone that inevitability outstrips the supply. Of course no sane politician will admit this. It is easier to promise that all will receive whatever is medically necessary. Has Mr. Connelly (or most people for that matter) stopped to ask what that means? Should doctors seek to save the largest number of lives, or the largest number of years of life? Even here in the U.S., resources are limited. No one doubts that spending a thousand dollars to save the life of a child is a good idea. However, what about five hundred thousand dollars to prolong a terminally ill patient’s painful life by a month?

There are no easy answers. Unfortunately, some of the President’s advisors have published their opinions about the questions. Cass Sunstein has written extensively about which life-saving rules are most cost-effective. Ezekiel Emanuel, a doctor whose brother is the President’s chief of staff, wrote a paper (The Lancet, 373) in which he proposed a system for determining who should be first in line for such things as liver transplants or vaccines during an epidemic. Among other factors, he suggested taking age into account, with adolescents and young adults getting priority, because they have fully developed personalities and many years of life ahead. Dr Emanuel even included a graph on page six showing voters above and below the ideal age how much less their lives are worth. I note with some amusement that the slope of the curve is negative at my age.



While distasteful to many, there is nothing unconstitutional about providing these services to anyone.



Most unlikely. As some readers of this forum may recall there was a sometimes animated thread in re an injunction issued by a federal judge in Washington state preventing that state from compelling pharmacists to issue abortifacients when doing so would violate their religious beliefs per the First Amendment to the Constitution.



Mr. Connelly should have used “might” or “could”, rather than “will”. The future of the insurance companies is contingent upon how much the federal plan costs. Given the spendthrift ways of the current congress, he may well have a point here, but it is not a given.



Pure nonsense; completely unsupported conjecture.



Strictly controlled federal expenditure is often considered an oxymoron. If it is, in this instance, achieved, the plan administers should be applauded, not condemned.



I take up the gauntlet Mr. Connelly has thrown down. Seventy-two years ago, in the ruling Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Supreme Court found Social Security constitutional. There is little reason to believe that the current court will rule differently on another piece of social legislation.

Further, in re the constitutional scope of Legislative Power, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reads “... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes ...“ Health care in these United States is a multi-billion dollar per year commercial activity. As such it may be regulated (or warped/twisted/mutilated, depending upon one’s point of view) by Congress.

For what it is worth, Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Butler in their dissenting votes shared Mr. Connelly’s opinion in re the 10th Amendment.

This was sent to me by one of the people,that run one of the "912" groups
that my wife & I belong to while in NH.We also belong to a Brevard County
one when we winter in Fla.
I have Drs for my Diabetes,PCP,Foot & Eyes(Diabetic Neuropothy).They are ALL against O'Bama Care.
If it passes,all Employers will be fined if they don't insure Employees.They will
figure that it's less expensive,to pay the :irish: fine!Therefore everyone will be on
the Govt Healthcare.Many will disagree but they have screwed up everything
else,so thats one of the reasons that I don't want it!
The straw that broke the camels back was when he couldn't understand why
someone who voulenteered wouldn't voulenteer to pay for their war injuries!
As a 10% Disabled VN Veteran,that just didn't make sense to me!I voulenteered but not to get shot or shrapneled(sp?) Irish :argue:

This is so much fucking bullshit. The whole they screw everything up argument is flawed beyond belief. I don't know about the rest of you but the roads I drive on are smooth and safe. We have a quality military. When properly funded other government agencies do a good job keeping us safe and regulated.

I hate to break it to people but libertarianism died with the economy last year. The whole concept that when left unregulated, and unwatched the system will regulate it self fell apart with the housing market, and economy.

HMMM no matter what the law says and what you believe makes yah want to think I like President Obama it's the people around him that skeves (spelling ?) me out We should all read the bill and understand it and demand our Senators and Representatives do too ok off soap box..... jude30 makes a good point ......... P.S. Where are the victory gardens

No matter what is said here, it'll be the Judges and the Courts who will have the final say.

The courts shouldn't legislate..... separation of powers

I should have taken bets on how long it would take.

Courts legislate every time they interpret the legislation. What becomes the usual interpretation may not be what was envisioned by the Senate and Congress.

I don't think it's the government's job to decide when a person of whatever age or physical condition will die or deprive them of services they arranged to to have available. How soon will it not just be the unwanted babies; the old or infirmed; the mentally handicapped or physically disadvantaged? It's true that today I, together with my physician, discuss and decide on treatments affecting my health and sometimes I have to decline services because the costs and benefits don't appear to be worth it. That's my decision based on my situation. But to have a government policy making that decision is wrong.

I also do not believe it should ever be a question of prolonging the lives of greater numbers or that of the terminally ill. We're ALL physically terminally ill from the moment of conception. Bodies wear out at some point and we're gone and that point varies by person. If a person has the resources or the access to resources and they choose to invest large somes to prolong their live for however little time ... they should have that option.

It's my feeling that life is God's gift to the world and that we should be far more appreciative of that gift than our country (and the world in general) seems to be today. What we don't need is another buracracy draining the weath and production of this country. Our debt levels are high enough.

To fix the problems of the uninsured is one thing. But to toss out what's working doesn't make sense and only contributes to higher costs.

On the subject of it costing more for older people,when they were younger-
how many years did they pay in without claiming anything?It usually (approx)
works out evenly.I tend to agree with Dicksbro.O'Bamas biggest mistake(in my
opinion)was in changing things ALL at once.Over the years,different benifits were gradually taken away & noone noticed but when a MAJOR change takes
place,then people notice!As I have said many times before-Different strokes
for different folks!While I'm not an expert like JSeal,I do have my own opinions,be they right or wrong & the last time that I checked,I was still an
American citizen with the right to vote!After the 25th,i will be offline for a few(?) days as I'm having a cataract operation before I become obsolete!
Irish :argue:

*backs slowly out of this thread*.....

IMNSHO- It is morally and ethically wrong to not to take care of each other.

It is also said that one man’s meat is another man’s poison.

All I know is Teddy Kennedy fought pretty hard and probably spent more money than any of us will ever have... for what ? You fill in the blank why shouldn't every American have the same opportunity ?..... will this health care bill let us do it ?

In Oz, we have universal Medical Insurance. This does not cover all, and if you want full cover you pay for extra cover.

The devil in the detail is, like the UK, the queues for the services if you haven't insurance to grab the procedure privately.

Where basic medical treatment stops and elective treatment starts is a toughie.

dicksbro & Oldfart have asked the right questions.

This is the most infuriating argument of all! Some lady bozo on a call-in talk show says, "Well, who says Social Security & Medicare are well-run govt programs?"...well, for one, I do...I know, it took an infuriatingly long time to get accepted, during which time I came very close to bankruptcy, but once I was in, it's saved my life...yes, Medicaid plan B has its drawbacks, some due to extensive red tape, but when push comes to shove, I get most of my medical necessities paid for...& I get no worse of a runaround from Medicaid than I ever got from private insurance companies! So you like your present medical insurance just fine, great...you do realize it's gonna go up, & up, & up, don't you? And why? Because the medical professionals & hospitals have to raise their rates because of the 45,000,000 or so folks here that don't have any insurance at all...what we have now is a broken non-system that's going to bankrupt us all soon, & I'd like to see the govt. at least TRY to wade in & fix this coalcart to Hell before it destroys us...

That's one argument I haven't heard expressed yet, that we already are paying for everyone else through higher premiums, and higher medical costs in general. My daughter spent five weeks in neonatal intensive care and we stopped counting the bill at $250,000. I had good insurance at the time which paid 80%. Still 80% of a quarter of a million dollars is $50,000. So even with insurance we were bankrupted. There were a lot of young people with babies in the NICU while our daughter was there and I'd be willing to wager that the majority of them had little to no insurance which the hospital ended up having to eat.

Obviously you don't live in NE.One of the newspapers in Rochester NH run a
weekly contest,in which the winner sends in where the biggest pothole is!
PF---That was John Kerry that taught navigation to the swift boat captains!
That was a joke! Irish :irish:
P.S. Medical Care is like the law.It's who you know & how much you can spend!This comes from a State Policemans(deceased) son!

I live in Kansas which has some of the best roads in the country. It's also one of the states with the worst annual temperature swings, which is really bad for roads. You know how we do it? Taxes, and government inspectors, two things which any libertarian finds to be a basic evil. I used to work as one of those state inspectors and now I do the same job in the private sector, if you honestly believe that the private sector is more efficient than the state, then boy do I have some news for you.

So I guess the alternative to all of this,is to just keep letting the insurance companies gouge us for coverage. I guess we can expect to keep being dropped for pre existing conditions,or when we loose our jobs like I did in March of 09. I know,I could have gotten COBRA coverage,but thats to damn expensive,and I just lost my job. What is the answer? Well if Europa and Canada can do single payer with very little problem, why can't we?

This was sent to me by one of the people,that run one of the "912" groups
 

Which is all I had to hear . What are you 912 people protesting anyway ?


Lying us into war torturing people and spying on us all is fine with you in the name of 9/11 but healthcare reform is some form socailism ?
Get a brain Morans !!
Is it me ? Why do you people vote for politicans that preach that governement is the wrong solution to everything only to elect then into office and prove it to be true ?

Because they vote for people who say "Let me represent you in the Capital" then go on to vote at the Party's call, totally disregarding the wishes and welfare of their electorate. "It's for the Greater Good" is the usual excuse.

"I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all." I am sure that I have heard that before somewhere ... :rolleyes:

But seriously, if we take as given that the insurance companies are "gouging" (Assuming Facts Not in Evidence), then we must assume that this is happening with the collusion of Federal & State insurance regulators. Health insurers have been regulated since the late 1800s.

As for the notion that "Europa and Canada can do single payer with very little problem", wouldn't that depend upon what one considers to be "very little"? Further, it is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many other people believe it.

While this or that example may help the U.S. towards a better, more inclusive health care system, should we not seek out an American solution?

"should we not seek out an American solution?"

Lovely if you can get one, but I suspect that most couldn't give a damn so long as an effective and affordable solution was implemented.

Determining what is "an effective and affordable solution" depends upon who is asked, does it not? The English solution is not the French solution which is not the Canadian solution. If no one gave a damn, then this thread would be empty.

That is right.The English,French,German,and Canadian health coverage is not all the same. But the did respond to the people's need for health coverage, while this country is waiting around for a change from the "free market" plan of health care,largly paid for by employers as a benifit. While some people are afraid of what it might mean to be covered by a gov't health plan,they should realize that loosing your coverage when you loose your job,and being dropped for an illness,having a pre existing claus in your policy or telling you what the insurance companies wil or willnot pay for is a product of the way they are run today. As far as the undocumented issue goes,is red meat for the conservatives,and as far as paying for abortions go,why not? They are legal aren't they? If anybody want to bring "death panels" into the issue,forget about it.They have been listening to the wrong: Beckpalinlimbaughoreilydobbsrepublicannaysaingastr oturfingfoxnewsbullshit. It isn't that the conservatives don't have any ideas at all,they do.But the legitiment concerns will be found listening to people like David Frum and Michael Medved.

If "regulators" of any industries were doing their jobs, we wouldn't be in the financial crisis we're in now...but I digress...

Since you say the facts are not in evidence, how about we just follow the money? "Someone" obviously is happy enough with the status quo to defend it with everything they've got, using scare tactics about "death panels" & "socialized medicine" to frighten already insecure people with lies, nonsense, & the occasional truckload of bullshit, & this campaign is financed by...who? Hard to say, for sure, but one of the fiercest arguments I hear is that a govt. funded system would put private companies out of business. AIG notwithstanding, whenever an insurance co. goes under, usually one finds rampant fraud, greed, and/or mismanagement pushed it under the bus. Otherwise healthy insurance companies seldom suffer that fate.

And just for the record, private insurers work hand-in-hand with the biggest Govt. medical programs of all, Medicare/Medicaid...I know this first hand, BTW...& I repeat my earlier statement that that works as well as any system, private or public...

What he ^^^ just said.





......... especially the part about "using scare tactics about "death panels" & "socialized medicine" to frighten already insecure people with lies, nonsense, & the occasional truckload of bullshit"

Misuse of language, accidental or otherwise, is one of the difficulties when trying to address complex issues. The suggestion by the immediate past governor of Alaska of future ‘death panels’ in any of the health-care bills now in Congress is an example of this. The use of the word ‘gouging’ when referring to health-care policy insurance premiums is another. To accept that the term was used appropriately is to presume that the premiums are in some way extorted or swindled from the insured, or that the insurance companies deceptively overcharge.

As these companies have been regulated by Federal & State oversight bodies for over a century, one must conclude that either the claim that they are gouging is false, or that there is, as was once claimed a “Vast right-wing conspiracy" (used then in defense of a President during a sex scandal), but this time to hide or disguise inordinately large profits from these health insurance premiums. While government bodies can be distressing ineffective, I find it difficult to accept a hundred-year conspiracy theory without evidence, hence the parenthetical aside.

As for the comment “If ‘regulators’ of any industries were doing their jobs, we wouldn't be in the financial crisis we're in now”, I find it passing strange that this would come from an advocate of a new multi-billion dollar a year Federal Entitlement program. If ‘the regulators’ are part of the problem (as claimed above), then why should we expect that adding an enormous additional program would cause anything but more of these problems? This new program would be a Federal health program with millions of participants. Medicaid, another Federal health program with millions of participants has been described in this thread as “it took an infuriatingly long time to get accepted,” and “Medicaid plan B has its drawbacks, some due to extensive red tape.” This is hardly what I consider to be a ringing endorsement of the precursor of a potential future. I would have thought that we would want fewer, not more problems as the fruits of our efforts.

For those who, for some reason still cling to the notion that the health insurance policies available in the U.S. represent some sort of “’free market’ plan of health-care”, let me again remind them that this industry has been regulated for more than a century. A regulated market is not a free market. It is foolish to think it is.

Finally, for those who think that any change to the status quo will be a change for the worse, let me remind them that there are many Americans who would like to secure health-care coverage, but cannot. The recent election has put these hopes in play. The President wants to help them get that coverage. He also wants to not break the bank while doing so. This is a real challenge.

There are many different ways that health-care can be provided. Loulabelle gave a pleasantly candid assessment of one. Oldfart referenced an alternative from Australia. Senator Baucus presented a plan last week which seems to be closest so far to accomplishing the goals described by the President.

The current debate about health-care reform is in part a debate about death, which is why it evokes such fear. Reformers say that objections are largely based on misunderstanding, fuelled by scaremongering. They have a point. I think they miss the point that a bigger problem is that most Americans have pretty good health insurance and no idea how much it costs. Taxpayers foot the bill for the old. Most workers with employer-provided health insurance think that their employer is paying for it, when in fact it is part of their wages.

The system is riddled with waste. That is pretty well documented. Yet most Americans feel little urge to make it more efficient. If you already have coverage, there is little incentive to the individual to seek efficiencies.

Of course many people feel insecure about the impending health-care changes! Few Americans have a clear idea how this great change will affect them. This should hardly come as a surprise, as even quite basic details are undecided. The uninsured have the most to gain, but they are only 15% of the population. Everyone else has something to lose. Many Americans do not trust the government to do anything much, let alone make decisions about life and death.

:huh:

Putting words in someone else's mouth is a time-honored technique of yours, & one that I am way past sick of. No where have I said that I am an advocate of the plan currently in play; in fact, the more I hear of it, the more I fear it will be less than a Band-Aid for the central problems before us. I do believe the current system is broken, & it would be nice if the self-professed most prosperous nation on earth could at least catch up a little with some of our equally developed neighbors & allies in taking care of our own.

If you had read a little further, you would have picked up on the fact that I said Medicaid was no more frustrating to deal with than private insurance I've had in the past; hardly a "ringing endorsement" of the exiting private system, I'd say. If I seem angry or bitter about private insurers, it's only because I really am (for reasons in the past my blood pressure would rather I not go into at the moment).

I have to say, at least I'm somewhat pleased that someone else sees the irony of my "truckload" comment enough to use it to bracket the latest incoming truckload... :bs:

Lets Get Back To The Point!
 

As Far As I am Concerned, ANYONE who Forces Anyone To Do Something With Threat of Reprisals If They Don't Is WRONG!

And That Is The Crux Of The Whole Debate As Far As I Am Concerned. I Do Not Want The Government Or Anybody Else Telling Me Or My Children That We Are Going To Have To Do This Or They Are Going To Penalize Us.

You Can Debate All The Rest Of The BS You Want But It Comes Down To You Having No Choice At All! :mad:

I give him a half point for not leaving the caps lock on for the whole damn message.

The govt forces us to do all kinds of things, under penalty, all the time. It's what they do. And sometimes it's actually for the common good. Get over it.

I am Well Over It!
 

:mad:
That is right they force us and force us and yet we don't do a thing about it, Go ahead and knuckle under.

If You want it go ahead, but at least give the rest of us the choice if we do or do not want it and if you do want it let it come out of your pocket not mine.

By they way what happened to free choice, I guess that will go down with the rest of the bill of rights.

You can't even run an ad contrary to this bill without them threating you, just ask Humana.

This speaks to the point I made in re the general ignorance about, and the associated insecurity with, the proposed reforms. It is a mistake to refer to the singular ‘it’. There is not one bill working through Congress, but several, as mentioned in the linked article about Senator Baucus’ bill. His is distinguished by at least approaching the President's "budget neutral" goal.


Ignoring the lurid prose, the fact remains that you have endorsed the proposition that the government fix the problem, seemingly without knowing what those changes entail.

It is often useful to become familiar with the subject material when advocating change.

sad_sam,

It is true that some people prefer to be told what to do.

Zoid has a point that we are and always have been 'told' what we can and can't do with threat of reprisal. We are glad that an authority says people can not barge into somebody else's home to rape and murder them. That's pretty acceptable. When we are told we HAVE to have a license to drive a car we cringe a little that we are being dictated to .............. until we see some of the drivers out there, then we just curse the cops for not being there. :hair: Now most states tell us we HAVE to have auto insurance and we squint another eye :mad: but know it really makes sense.

Part of the problem for us old bastards is we believed that :bs: of the "Bill of Rights" and American individualism and freedom that we were brought up on. Looking back, we nor any other country ever had freedom from tax or authority to do as they feel is appropriate at the time. We just hope for a form of benevolent dictatorship and hope it doesn't hurt US.

Isn't it sad that the "bricks" of that dictatorship rise from within our societies.