Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional

[formerlurker]

Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything

By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI

President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Freeper]

When confronted about this Nancy Pelosi will roll her eyes and say, "Are you serious?"

[Oceander]

When confronted about this Nancy Pelosi will roll her eyes and say, "Are you serious?"

So did Il Duce, right up until he got hung out to dry by his ankles.

[Splashdown]

When confronted about this Nancy Pelosi will roll her eyes and say, "Are you serious?"

Wonder if the Court will agree with her?

[rich_t]

According to some, all legislation is constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

 

[formerlurker]

According to some, all legislation is constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

 

If by "some" you mean the language of the Consitution, then yeah.   That is what is great about our country -- the whole checks and balances thing.   


Article I
Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

[rich_t]

Yeah....

That whole checks and balances thing is a good concept.

Too bad it's not working as well as it should be.

Too many liberal judges legislating from the bench.

And no FL, I wasn't talking about the language of the COTUS.

 

[formerlurker]

Yeah....

That whole checks and balances thing is a good concept.

Too bad it's not working as well as it should be.

Too many liberal judges legislating from the bench.

And no FL, I wasn't talking about the language of the COTUS.

 

The Constitution provides for SCOTUS to determine if legislation is Constitutional.   You can have an opinion, but their opinion is absolute.   What part of that is unclear to you?

[Crazy Horse]

The Constitution provides for SCOTUS to determine if legislation is Constitutional.  You can have an opinion, but their opinion is absolute.  What part of that is unclear to you?

I would guess the absolute part.  So because they ruled in favor of McCain Feingold, means it's constitutional?  Because they ruled against Kelo means that it's constitutional to take private property and give it to others for financial gain?

No, their shit stinks also, and as long as they continue to place partisans on the court and not constitutionalists they will continue to rule based on the majority with unconstitutional decisions. 

[ColonialMarine0431]

The Constitution provides for SCOTUS to determine if legislation is Constitutional.   You can have an opinion, but their opinion is absolute.   What part of that is unclear to you?

I seem to recall a little thing called Slavery as once being deemed "Constitutional". The SCOTUS is not infallable.

[formerlurker]

I would guess the absolute part.  So because they ruled in favor of McCain Feingold, means it's constitutional?  Because they ruled against Kelo means that it's constitutional to take private property and give it to others for financial gain?

No, their shit stinks also, and as long as they continue to place partisans on the court and not constitutionalists they will continue to rule based on the majority with unconstitutional decisions. 

I was referring to rich_t's passive aggressive post:

According to some, all legislation is constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

He was referring to a debate on secession that was had recently.    The authors of the Constitution provided for a means to resolve conflicting interpretations of the language of COTUS, and that is by SCOTUS whose authority is absolute.   The Constitution is a document that was heavily debated in numerous heated discussions amongst good and extremely intelligent men.   I am most sure that they would have anticipated like discussions and debates in the future, and that appointments to SCOTUS would be resultant of political maneuvering.   The present make up of SCOTUS and our Federal Court system would not exactly come as a surprise to them.

Issues reviewed by SCOTUS in the past can certainly be presented for review again.   Once and done is not exactly how the system is designed.     

[formerlurker]

I seem to recall a little thing called Slavery as once being deemed "Constitutional". The SCOTUS is not infallable.

When did SCOTUS have the authority to implement a Constitutional Amendment?

[bkg]

Yeah....

That whole checks and balances thing is a good concept.

Too bad it's not working as well as it should be.

Too many liberal judges legislating from the bench.

And no FL, I wasn't talking about the language of the COTUS.

 

there are people who seem to believe that Congress and the ADministration can do whatever TF they want and as long as SCOTUS doesn't squack, it's a-okay. That's complete bullshit... Congress and the Administration took an oath to UPHOLD COTUS... The same COTUS that doesn't give them (fed gov't) the power to do about 80% of what they are doing today... but they do it anyway.  Anyone who thinks it's ONLY SCOTUS' job to uphold COTUS is entirely incorrect.

And who would want a congress or administration to write legislation that does ANYTHING other than uphold COTUS, Liberty and Freedom anyway? It's not just the forced purchase that is unconsitituational, it's the ENTIRE FAWKING CONCEPT of gov't takeover. But this is the only part that will be challenged, and it will eventually be dropped... for now... and we'll all be that much more fawked.

[formerlurker]

Anyone who thinks it's ONLY SCOTUS' job to uphold COTUS is entirely incorrect.

Where was that asserted?   

[rich_t]

I was referring to rich_t's passive aggressive post:

He was referring to a debate on secession that was had recently.    The authors of the Constitution provided for a means to resolve conflicting interpretations of the language of COTUS, and that is by SCOTUS whose authority is absolute.   The Constitution is a document that was heavily debated in numerous heated discussions amongst good and extremely intelligent men.   I am most sure that they would have anticipated like discussions and debates in the future, and that appointments to SCOTUS would be resultant of political maneuvering.   The present make up of SCOTUS and our Federal Court system would not exactly come as a surprise to them.

Issues reviewed by SCOTUS in the past can certainly be presented for review again.   Once and done is not exactly how the system is designed.     

No I wasn't.  I was referring to the words of a few in congress.

In the future why don't you endeavor not to act like a mind reader.  You aren't very good at it.

[formerlurker]

No I wasn't.  I was referring to the words of a few in congress.

In the future why don't you endeavor not to act like a mind reader.  You aren't very good at it.

Sorry then.  The really makes no sense however if that was the reference you were making.   

[rich_t]

there are people who seem to believe that Congress and the ADministration can do whatever TF they want and as long as SCOTUS doesn't squack, it's a-okay. That's complete bullshit... Congress and the Administration took an oath to UPHOLD COTUS... The same COTUS that doesn't give them (fed gov't) the power to do about 80% of what they are doing today... but they do it anyway.  Anyone who thinks it's ONLY SCOTUS' job to uphold COTUS is entirely incorrect.

And who would want a congress or administration to write legislation that does ANYTHING other than uphold COTUS, Liberty and Freedom anyway? It's not just the forced purchase that is unconsitituational, it's the ENTIRE FAWKING CONCEPT of gov't takeover. But this is the only part that will be challenged, and it will eventually be dropped... for now... and we'll all be that much more fawked.

Exactly my point.

[rich_t]

Sorry then.  The really makes no sense however if that was the reference you were making.   

It was intended to imply that I was looking forward to others chiming in on the topic.

If I had intended to stir the pot over a thread that basically died weeks ago, I would have merely posted within that thread.

I'm a pretty straight forward kind of guy for the most part.