Topic: Constitutional Issues
American Health Care Reform: Un-Constitutional From the Start There is nothing within the United States Constitution that authorizes any type of Federal Health Care Program. So, why are we having this discussion at all?by EJ Moosa
(libertarian)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
There is nothing within the United States Constitution that authorizes any type of Federal Health Care Program. So, why are we having this discussion at all?
There must be some Senators and Congressmen that realize this simple fact. If so, why are they not willing to come out and state the obvious? How can a Senator or Congressman negotiate compromises on what is obviously un-constitutional? Frankly, they should not even sit down to discuss it. I would like to know why they do.
If you attend a Town Hall meeting and are fortunate enough to ask a question please ask "What part of the Constitution authorizes National Health Care?" We need to have this question asked repeatedly.
People, we really need to get back to the basics, and in this case, that means a Constitutional form of government. If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama would like to have health care at the State Level for all of the residents, then resign from your current office, go home, and make it happen. But do not force your Unconstitutional desires upon the rest of us. We do not want it. We will not tolerate it any longer.
Moving forward, we need to have a zero tolerance for Constitutional infractions made by Congress or the President. The very first thing they do is swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, then they proceed to circumvent it at every turn. Isn't it time we stand up and say no more? When calling your officials, ask the question when you call: "Where does the Constitution authorize this bill?"
Senators Chambliss (R-GA) and Isakson (R-Ga), please take the time to say no to ANY legislation that is not authorized by the Constitution. Isn't it really just that simple? If not, tell me why.
Would the nation really stop if the House and the Senate refused to deal with any issues not authorized by the Constitution?
Or would it just be Washington, D.C. That stops?
Most of us can live with that.
What about you? What are your thoughts?
When you call your elected representatives and ask about the Constitutional merits of legislation, also let us know what they say. I know I would be interested in hearing their responses.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 21 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The 9th and 10th amendment can after all power derives from the people and they seemed to like Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal intrusions so I would say this is the case. The people and the states permitted and consented to granting the Federal government health care oversight and intrusion. After all if a state is free from such demands they are free to grant to the Federal authorities some of their duties and powers.
To put this simply say you have a sick mother and she grants the reader powers to make medical and legal decisions you volunteer to do so. The same thing here the states and people can refuse to take part and lose the Federal money, hospitals don\'t have to take Medicare patiants and so forth. But no they opt in so give to the Federal government certain added powers and can in practice take them back.
Thomas has a good point. The states accept the conditions of many federal programs in order to obtain the federal funds. This logic runs through just about every program. The perversity of it is that the federal funds originated, although unequally, within the states due to the income tax. So the funds are collected and redistributed with contingencies.
The original intention of our government was to govern from the local to the federal. So, the states would receive funding from the counties and the fed would receive funding from the states. the income tax and the creation of the fed helped shift the power so that the states rely on the fed and the counties rely on the states.
The health industry could at least have never grown to a "national" monopoly without the power of the federal government. It might of had a stranglehold on some areas and not on others. This would allow areas with exorbinant costs to study those with lower costs and improve their condition. Not so with federal control.
The perversities can be undone, just as slavery was undone. It must start somewhere.
Some states have taken baby steps, as we have seen, by rejecting stimulus money. Many have been too weak to resist the pressure and have accepted funds despite the desires not to.
Today, we have many states declaring their firm belief in the 10th Amendment. We must hold these States accountable and let them know it is time to "walk the walk if they want to talk the talk." Otherwise, vote them out, and find someone who will.
Many of us said it was a slippery slope with Medicare, Medicaid, and so on. Now the very fact that those programs are in place is being used to say that we have already accepted socialized medicine. Now is the time to unaccept it, just as we did with slavery.
Whatever the cost is to us to do this today, it will be cheaper than what it will cost us in the future. We may as well do it now.
I agree with EJ Moosa. We should not allow the criminals who run our government to do anything beyond what the constitution allows. And every time they try to stick their foot in the door we should slam the door really hard on their foot. The constitution protects all of our rights and once they start encroaching on it our rights start to disappear.
Bush called Jose Padilla an enemy combatant and had him thrown in jail without charges, without habeas corpus, without due process, and without a trial by jury, all of which are required by the constitution. Maybe you don't care about Padilla but if they can do it to him what keeps them from doing it to you?
The government took $700 billion from the treasury and gave it to the crooked bankers who are responsible for our current economic mess. No part of the constitution says they can do that but they did it anyway and now each and every American is over $2000 deeper in debt.
No part of the constitution says government can create social security or Medicare but they did it anyway and now the country faces $40 trillion in unfunded future liabilities because of those two programs.
But let's look at some bills currently in the House.
HR-1444 would create a commission to see if mandatory service can be imposed on the American people. Mandatory service is a euphemism for involuntary servitude which was banned by the 13th amendment. But apparently the crooks who run the government don't give a damn. They would make the people slaves to the government.
HR-2159 says people who are known or suspected dangerous terrorists can be denied the right to own a gun. Well the word suspected means that person hasn't been found guilty of anything. Some nut in government suspects you're a terrorist and that's it for you. So government not only denies you the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but also does so without due process of law as required by the 5th amendment.
HR-2401 would deny the right to own guns to anyone on the no-fly list. The no-fly list also is totally lacking in due process of law. Anyone can be on it and not even know it. You don't have to be convicted or even get a hearing. Some moron bureaucrat puts you on the list and then your screwed. Even Ted Kennedy was on it. Fortunately for him he had enough pull as a senator to get off of it. But imagine you or me trying to get off of it.
Now those last three bills are not law yet and perhaps will never become law but it demonstrates the total lack of respect for the constitution among those in power. And it gives you some small idea of the despotism they could inflict on us if those unconstitutional bills become law.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-10 09:47:26
Hi EJ,
Bottom line is that folks who support socialist health care policies believe they will be getting something they need at someone elses' expense. Folks who oppose it believe this is an immoral use of the threat of government force. All the other nonsense that fuels the jabber on and around this issue is spin and manipulation.
No one but the most foolish believe that either system is going to be free or cover EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING. The argument is about whether or not to use the government to force others to pay for my health care. I oppose that being done on my behalf.
Under socialist systems there is no example of things getting better. Our
care
is wonderful, the problem isn't the care, it is the costs. Our costs are high because of the govenment meddling in the business model of insurance. This ignorant debate is fueled by people who can't or won't recognize the difference between welfare and insurance.
Welfare is the forced confiscation of one person's income to give to someone else for doing absolutely nothing.
Insurance is the voluntary participation in a proven system of risk mitigation that allows individuals to afford services that would be out of reach due to cost otherwise.
When the government begins to use these words interchangeably and the voters are too stupid to know the difference, that is when we will succumb to the destructive burden of socialized medicine. I don't think our nation is quite that dumb yet.
A deregulated insurance industry fosters research and development as well as the educational pipeline of new health professionals. All welfare systems result in reduced quality, no R&D or innovation and turns the recipients into liabilities for the State.
Another myth is that a politician running for office is going to make individual decisions about care based on its political relevance. The real-world shows that this is not so. Instead, decisions are made one-size-fits-all and no personal considerations are made. Look at any government bureaucracy and you'll find none that cater to the individual. The liability is just too great. Any hint of favoritism (except for the socialist ruling class and entertainers) would be political death.
The best and brightest health care are not automatically drawn to our hospitals and schools. They come here because our system fosters innovation in their fields and prosperity in their careers. Socialism kills both of those desirable characteristics of our system. Instead, the best and brightest will follow the innovation and growth while our system will eventually be populated with government zombies, foreign educated boobs who couldn't get a job in Asia.
Finally most people who support this disaster believe that dissenters are challenging their good intentions. I think those intentions are admirable, however, using socialism as a means of attaining them is historically a disaster that last for decades.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
