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 .

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

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

__________________

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.

__________________
Eudaimonia

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 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

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

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.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

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

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

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

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

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

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

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

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

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

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

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

__________________
Eudaimonia