Before the House completes the debate, drafts and votes on passage of a final version of Healthcare Reform Legislation, 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) is “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 House Healthcare Reform Bill (or 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 House Healthcare Reform Bill (or 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, the House Healthcare Reform Bill (or HR 3200) contains 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. The House Healthcare Reform Bill (or 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 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and all House Democrats and Republicans to obtain an opinion regarding the “Constitutionality” of Healthcare Reform Legislation, particularly in the public option, and the “Individual Mandate” and “Employer Mandate” from legal council through the House Judiciary Committee or Judicial Department. This is necessary to limit the risk of legal tests of constitutionality by a variety of civil liberties unions and groups in the courts.

AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS ALL ACROSS THE USA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO COUNT ON THEIR RELIGIOUS FLOCK TO CONTRIBUTE(TITHE)THEIR HARD EARNED MONIES TO THEIR MINISTRIES EVERY WEEK.

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ATTENDING RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE U.S. ARE MIDDLE~CLASS AND WORKING POOR CITIZENS WHO NOW DESPERATELY NEED THE HELP AND SUPPORT FROM THESE SAME U.S.RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN LOBBYING THE U.S.CONGRESS TO PROVIDE PROPER HEALTH~CARE FOR ALL POORER AMERICANS.

***THERE ARE CURRENTLY AN ESTIMASTED 45 MILLION MEN WOMAN AND CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH~CARE IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD????

SILENT AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHO ALL HAVE HEALTH~CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES IS MUCH MORE FRIGHTENING THEN THE POSSIBLE DENIAL OF A FUTURE HEALTH~CARE PLAN FOR ALL…

LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS (424-247-2013)
lawyersforpooreramericans@yahoo.com