1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Healthcare law Constitutional????

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by bigdogtx, Apr 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    We CAN'T be sure it will be overturned so don't forget November 2010

    "The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

    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.

    The 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 by the government.

    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 US. 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.

    This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivionregardless 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, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

    Michael Connelly
    Retired attorney,
    Constitutional Law Instructor
    Carrollton , Texas"
     
  2. grunt

    grunt TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,922
    Location:
    Thousand Oaks Ca
    Thank you, Great thread.
     
  3. SeldomShoots

    SeldomShoots Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Indiana
    Just some questions I have. How is it within the parameters of the constitution to:

    1) force people to carry liability insurance to license and drive their car or receive a fine or penalty? Conversely, why should I have to pay additional premium and carry uninsured motorist coverage to protect myself from those who refuse to obey this law? Why doesn't everyone just insure themselves?

    2) force employers to carry worker's compensation insurance or receive a fine or penalty? Just let the worker go after the employer if the employer was negligent and if it was the worker's fault, then it is the worker's burden to bear?

    3) force people to wear helmets on motorcycles and to wear seatbelts in a vehicle, or receive a fine or penalty?

    4) force people to pay taxes on property and assets that their parents worked for that they receive through inheritance? Mothers and Fathers already worked for that money and paid tax on it. Does the federal (except in 2010) and state government really need another bite of the apple?

    5) force people to pay sales tax on a used car, used piece of equipment or used gun, (purchased from a retail merchant), when sales tax was already paid on the item at the point of purchase when it was new? I'll say it again, does state governments really need another bite of the apple?

    I guess what I don't understand, is that laws, which should be equally offensive have been passed under various administrations by our government both Democrat and Republican, yet no one, especially the voting public seeks to send people to office who will override the errors of the prior politicians and correct them. Where was anyone to state that NAFTA was unconstitutional? Instead of making all of these new laws why don't we tweek and correct the old ones?

    Regardless of whether health care reform is unconstitutional, no point in complaining now, the people of this country gave up their rights long ago by voting for the party, or soundbites spewed in a campaign speech instead of voting for people with common sense and conviction for the greater good of America.

    John E.
     
  4. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    VOTE THE FOOLS OUT THIS FALL. FOLLOW THE TEA PARTY.
     
  5. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    John,

    Not a constitutional expert and can only therefore address part of #1,,,,If you don't want UM/Under Insured you don't have to have it,,,,just understand that if someone uninsured hits you,,,,you PAY for the damages....

    "Why doesn't everyone just insure themselves",,,,just how many have liquid cash to pay for a totalled Lexus or Mercedes???? Think about it.
     
  6. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    It starts with voting out all incumbents who voted for this shit.
     
  7. mixer

    mixer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,386
    Location:
    Coral Springs, Florida
    Voting out those who supported the health care bill will only show your displeasure at what they have done. It not change anything except the people in office. Think locking the barn after the horse is stolen.

    Eric
     
  8. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,678
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    I think you are wrong mixer. If you vote out all that voted for healthcare, the ones that did not vote will definately get the message to start listening to the people. It may take 2 or 3 elections but eventually we will get all of the arrogant bastards out of office or they will at least get the message.

    The important thing is don't forget in Nov. and send E mails over and over again to everyone in your address book to remind them how to vote.Start the E mails in mid October. Diligence and persistance!! Bulge.
     
  9. SeldomShoots

    SeldomShoots Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Indiana
    b-dog, I realize that UM/UIM is optional, but my point was that insurance requirements are crappy and unfair, because, there are people who refuse to abide by the law, even if the particular law in question is bogus to start with. In the end,it comes down to those who can pay - have to pay for those who can't or won't.

    Apparently, I wasn't clear or you misunderstood my point about insuring themselves. It was not meant in the context of say a company being self insured and paying for the damage using the insurance company as an adminstrator. It was meant or propositioned to be that an individual would buy an insurance policy to insure his or her automobile for any type of damage including bodily injury, whether it was caused by the owner or another driver. Perhaps the only caveat could be that if the owner was negligent and caused the accident, then the owner could expect a premium increase, whereas if the owner was not negligent or the cause of the accident there would be no premium increase. Also, if I am understanding you to mean that owners of Lexus or Mercedes automobiles probably don't have the money to replace them, as a reason for not being "insured themselves", what are they doing buying such an expensive car? Think about that.
     
  10. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,648
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    John, Car insurance is not a federal mandate. one of the reasons Wisconsin has so many illegals is that there is no insurance requirement in this state.

    Workmen's comp is also a state mandate here, at least it was when I was in business.

    Motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, also state laws were enacted upon arm twisting by the National Highway Safety which withheld funds unless these laws were enacted. One genius legislator in Michigan even put forth a proposal for seat belts on motorcycles,woo hoo.

    I fail to see any connection to the constitution in these situations.

    The constitution clearly states the federal government should leave the states alone for the most part. IMO any time the feds try to run something they screw it up.

    Carter started the Department of Education, and now some schools don't even graduate half their students. As far as I remember my state got along just fine without it.

    and on and on.............

    HM

    There have been many power grabs by the Feds over the years, but the last steaming pile of dung is pure Obamanation.
     
  11. REA

    REA TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    47
    Hope I am wrong, but whenever a law gets passed that's the end of it. The Republicans didn't do anything except sit back and let it pass. I wouldn't expect anything from them except talk.

    I have been reading a book titled The 5000 Year Leap. It is about the original meaning of what the Constitution mean't. What a difference between now and then!
     
  12. SeldomShoots

    SeldomShoots Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Indiana
    HM,

    Sure, the states have enacted many of these b.s. traffic laws, however, the federal government enacted the laws and enabling statutes to create the departments and regulations of the federal government such as National Highway Safety and the Federal Motor Carrier Transportation Act. Granted, when the federal government dangles money, or threatens to take away a state's federal highway funding to ensure compliance, they are permitted to do it, but it is not right. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government is trampling on state's rights, however, our supreme court has said thats okay if the federal government is paying for it, or withhold's funding for non-compliance. So it does have a relationship to the constitution, its just that the supreme court says that the federal government can step all over the Constitution if money is involved.

    Also, how come nobody has addressed the double taxation issue of sales tax, inheritance and estate and gift tax. Granted sales tax is set and collected by states. But every state has adopted a constitution. Seems to me that falls into the category of taxation without representation. Don't forget our forefathers had a little tea party in Boston regarding a similar issue back in 1773.

    While it is true, democrats have a history of raising taxes, and George H.W. Bush couldn't keep his campaign promise of "No new taxes", I have to agree with REA, the Republicans, when in power sat back and did nothing. Complacency has been around in Washington for a long time.

    John
     
  13. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,648
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    John, they are not taxing the item. Thetransactionis what is being taxed.

    Every house that I ever bought had a transfer tax on it. each time the house was sold the tax was paid.

    I am totally against sales taxes, but the reality is that the sale, not the goods is what's taxed.

    HM
     
  14. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    REA wrote - "The Republicans didn't do anything except sit back and let it pass" Not a single republican voted for health care, so how is that just sitting back and letting it pass?
     
  15. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    John,

    My reference to the Lexus and Mercedes, was that most individuals cannot afford to self insure, and it is NOT economically feasible, with the costs of replacing these or other expensive items out of individual assets, therefore you would buy insurance to protect your assets if you are at fault.
     
  16. REA

    REA TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    47
    They should have seen it coming and argued the facts before it passed. There is supposed to be a checks and balances system and it didn't work. Why wait until after to try and repeal it? In fact what have they done about it since?
     
  17. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    REA

    "The Republicans didn't do anything except sit back and let it pass"

    "They should have seen it coming and argued the facts before it passed. There is supposed to be a checks and balances system and it didn't work."

    I don't know where you have been for the last 8 months but you should go to the above website and read what is there about health care reform and the republicans. Take special care to look at the date on the article and ask yourself why it took 8 months of Obama's lying and double dealings to get it passed when he wanted it done by last fall.

    "My attitude is I want to get it right, but I also want to get it done promptly," Obama said. "Our target date is to get this done by the fall. That's the bottom line."

    Obama's desired schedule already appeared in doubt because of fierce Republican opposition and cost concerns by fiscally conservative Democrats over the $1 trillion package proposed so far."

    I guess those must be some other republicans. You know the ones that didn't do anything but sit back and watch it happen!!!!! Right!!!!

    Bob Lawless
     
  18. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    lctrapshooter

    "vote em all out, but they don't care. They serve one term, and are set for
    life, with full Govt. benefits until their dying breath"

    You might want to rethink your position. They don't care because they know that the only way they will be put out of office is by being voted out. It is time for all of us to work to get term limits put on the ballot in your state.

    Shut off the gravy train ASAP they can't get rich enough in two terms to set themselves up for life. You may think they don't care, don't kid yourself they want all they can get before they get out of office.

    So you just sit back and let them get away with all that they are getting away with now, and you will get what you deserve.

    Bob Lawless
     
  19. SeldomShoots

    SeldomShoots Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Indiana
    Half,

    I am not sure what the transfer tax is that you speak of. I have not had any experiences with such a tax in Indiana. Old deeds at the recorders office have transefer tax stamps on them. However, people with newer deeds say in the last 30 years have just paid a disclosure and transfer fee totaling $15.00 to the County Auditor and a Recording fee of $14.00 for the first page and $2.00 for each page thereafter.

    I hate to beat a dead horse, and continue to disagree with you, but sales tax is not a transfer or a transaction tax, it is tax based on the value of the product new or used that you buy from a retail merchant, unless it comes under some exemption. Accordingly, state government reaps double or more taxation on the sale of used goods.

    John E.
     
  20. rd

    rd TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    159
    Ivanhoe- term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators is unconstitutional--see U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, (1995). The only way to term limit a Federal officholder is by the Constitutional Amendment process. The President is term limited by Article XXII of the Amendments to the Constitution.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.