RE: Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill – Unconstitutional

Before the Senate Finance Committee completes the debate, drafts and votes on passage of a final version of the Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill, you need to know that Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution does not grant Congress either the power or authority to enact legislation for overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system as well as a public healthcare option or a Government run single payer healthcare plan.

Specific violations of Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution include, but are not limited to:

1. Social engineering of the national health care system or complete overhauling of the healthcare system (including a public healthcare option or Government run single payer healthcare plan, and individual and employer mandates are “Unconstitutional” pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 “The Welfare Clause”, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 “The Commerce Clause”, Article 1 Section 8 Clause18, “The Necessary and Proper Clause paired with the Commerce Clause” and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

2. The highly controversial individual mandate and penalty (or excise tax) of $750 or $1,900 on individuals who do not have health insurance is likewise “Unconstitutional” pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 “The Welfare Clause”, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 “The Commerce Clause”, Article 1 Section 8 Clause18, “The Necessary and Proper Clause paired with the Commerce Clause” and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

3. Specific constitutional problems with both the Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill and H.R. 3200 include, but are not limited to:

a. Outside Washington, DC and the federal territories, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to control healthcare.
b. As can be seen in current healthcare proposals, Congress cannot delegate any of its authority to the Executive Branch.
c. The federal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship violates the “substantive due process” principle. (Note: simply put, “substantive due process” holds that the 5th and 14th Amendments’ “due process clauses” must protect not only procedural rights but also “substantive” rights which are those more fundamental rights of freedom to do certain things the government may not desire the individual to do. It holds that due process cannot be completely just if it is applied to unjustly deprive a person of his basic human liberties.)
d. Citing the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court holds that Congress may not “commandeer” state decision-making in the service of federal goals.
e. While Congress may condition grants to states, if those conditions are “coercive” then the mandates contained in the Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill and HR 3200 violate that prohibition against coercion.

It is cautioned that imposing national healthcare has serious “constitutional dimensions”. The seemingly unbridled federal overreaching of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, “The General Welfare Clause” of the U. S. Constitution would necessitate the enactment of the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 450) which is currently buried in the Democratic-dominated House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties.

Probably the overarching constitutional concern is the “individual mandate” which would require every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, the answer is “No”. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none of the power to promote the General Welfare regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Specific constitutional problems with the “individual mandate” are as follows:

1. If a Healthcare Reform Bill is passed, individuals will be forced to either buy health insurance or not buy health insurance or pay a penalty (i.e., excise tax, excise fee, fine, etc). Of course it’s not constitutional. The 10th Amendment explicitly limits the Federal government to only those functions specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I have reread the Constitution and am still unable to find the clause that permits the Federal government to provide healthcare. A reading of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS clearly dispels the notion that the reference in the Constitution’s Preamble to the promoting the general welfare trumps the 10th Amendment. Because of the vagueness of the “general welfare” clause, the Congress is really trying to stretch its political outreach to overhaul the entire national healthcare system and already has gone way beyond what is mandated by Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution.

2. Secondly, both the Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill and HR 3200 contain a provision to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose “Taxes on Individuals Not Obtaining Acceptable Coverage”. This clearly violates Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution that provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” Singling out individuals or groups for punitive taxes because they don’t behave as the government demands is clearly prohibited. No one can argue that it would simply be a penalty or sentence for breaking the law because it denies due process and a trial by jury. The government would simply pronounce you guilty and confiscate your money.

Any major healthcare overhaul could face legal tests of constitutionality by the Judicial Branch. Neither the Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill nor HR 3200 cites the commerce clause or any other enumerated power to warrant its authority. In fact, the only reference to the Constitution in any proposed healthcare reform legislation is a severability clause which is intended to spare the remainder of the bill’s provisions if a part is declared unconstitutional. Maybe the drafters of these Bills really do understand the constitutional ramifications after all and are trying to cut their possible losses.

In any event, Congress will have to decide whether it is willing to face a myriad of lawsuits in the federal courts as well as the U. S. Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of Healthcare Reform Legislation, including provisions for a public healthcare option as well as both an individual mandate and employer mandate.

It is my belief that it would be in the best interests of Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and all Senators to obtain an opinion regarding the “Constitutionality” of the “Individual Mandate” from legal council through the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is necessary to limit the risk of legal tests of constitutionality by a variety of civil liberties unions and groups and the Judicial Branch.

I understand full well the meaning of “Rule of Law “since I hold law degrees from United Kingdom and the United States. We are faced with an enemy that have no regard for human life nor basic human rights. This is evidenced by the attacks on Americans both in the United States and foreign venues.

The objective of the CIA is to obtain intelligence and information in the protection of the United States. There is a fine line in which CIA clandestine operations attempted to follow. The CIA IS NOT the FBI, which operates within the United States and is law enforcement agency . The historical record is that there was NO attack on the United States since Tuesday, September 11, 2001 . Was this because our military , intelligence and law enforcemt operated as one force passing information . We recall the “fire wall ” between CIA and FBI a legal answer to the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing

Organizations such as the ACLU is attempting subvert American intelligence service by the employment of the phrase of “Rule of law “. The problem that will be evidenced is that the intelligence community or specifically its members WILL NOT obtain information that will assist this nation in a repeat 9/11 .I would submit would anyone of us take an action and five , eight years down road find yourself in a court of law as a defendent

If the intelligence community is suppressed my question is, “Who shall the American public lay the blame.” Attorney General Eric Holder / President of the United States, interest groups such as ACLU at whose feet ?? Lawyers will use our “word smith “abilities to deflect the blame. I would NEVER approve the inhumane killing of a human being …but to obtain information so that we may protect our nation, which the CIA did , , count me in

Standing by for ACT II of 9/11 …..

Were these morons able to get information via torture? Sure they did. Most of that info was false. You see, under those circumstances, the person being tortured will say just about anything. It is quite interesting: no one in this administration (Excuse me, I meant to say, “THAT administration) was smart enough to figure this out.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

The fact is that it is the CIA's own leadership that put their agents in danger of prosecution simply by leadership's not obeying and respecting our Federal Laws and Constitution. But then CIA wishes to be exempt from all laws in any country in which it operates, including the United States.

Bush and Cheney attempted to ignore the law and thereby put all CIA agents who tortured or conspired to torture, even if they meant well (chuckle), at serious risk of Federal prosecution. That the leadership of CIA was corrupt at the time does not make what they did any less illegal.

And Attorney General Holder's special prosecutor-trial balloon is designed to try to get away with a very narrowly focused, very limited investigation of only a few criminals who tortured using methods worse than the
ALREADY ILLEGAL Torture Methods In Bush's Torture Memos.

We voters need a complete investigation of all the abuses of power and violations of Federal Laws under Bush and Cheney. Holder's tightly focused, limited investigation of torture that violated the “Bush Cheney Torture Memos” Is Just More Cover Up.

The problem here is that Attorney General Holder seems to be leaning toward a very narrow investigation about the “wrong” Torture violations.

Holder appears to be saying that the Bush “Torture Memos” have the force of law, that the memos became new torture law and that he only has to prosecute violations which were outside of the Torture allowed by the memos. That is false.

The “Torture Memos” themselves are a criminal conspiracy to evade our Federal Anti-Torture Laws and to render our Federal Torture Law moot. A presidentially appointed lawyer can't make or change Federal Laws no matter who appoints them. Only Congress can do that.

Prosecute all those that ordered torture in our name, then go after all the other violations of Federal Laws and of our Constitution committed by Bush and Cheney.

The only way to protect lower ranking CIA agents, soldiers and law enforcement agents from prosecution for violating Federal Laws ( while under orders from superiors to do so) is to prosecute the superiors that ordered the illegality in the first place, even if, and especially If it includes former Presidents, Vice Presidents and Directors of the CIA.

Prosecution of the leaders will protect the agents. Enforcement of our Torture Laws will protect our freedoms from the tyranny of the powerful.

“Only Prosecution deters crime”.

SIGN THE PETITIONS
Demanding
both a Commission of Inquiry
and a Special Prosecutor
For All Their Crimes
at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

KEEP ASKING ALL POLITICIANS AT ALL PUBLIC EVENTS

“WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TORTURE?” If they aren't actively calling for enforcement of our Federal Torture Laws, They DO Support Torture.

SIGN THE PETITIONS
Demanding
both a Commission of Inquiry
and a Special Prosecutor
For All Their Crimes
at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Over 250,000 signed Add your Signature Today

Only Prosecution Stops Torture!

Only Prosecution Stops Violations of Our Constitution and Rule Of Law.