Proposed health care reform... can this really pass a Constitutional challenge?

[thotzRthingz]

It's one thing for the government to levy payroll taxes for "social security" and "medicare" ... funds which are NON-PROFIT in nature, to provide for the common good.

It's quite another thing for the government to MANDATE that everyone give their money (up to 20% of their income?) to FOR-PROFIT private companies with NO guarantee that treatment without denials will occur... that is NOT a "for the common good" sort of program, IMO.

OTOH: if the government simply expanded a MEDICARE type of SINGLE PAYER program, to every American... hmmm...

[thotzRthingz]

1. for example, take the legal challenges already underway...

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/10-red-states-now-questioning-nelson-deal/">10 Red States Now Questioning Nelson Deal -- where the "challenge" is NOT about expansion of the current government program... but is ALL about 49 other states having to foot the $bill$ for one single "exempt" state (i.e., Nebraska).

[thotzRthingz]

3. does it all come down to this fundamental question?

The Constitution provides Congress with certain enumerated powers in Article I and explicitly leaves all other powers to the states or the people in the 10th Amendment.

So, the constitutional question, for those who still care whether laws are constitutional, is whether the power to force you to buy a horrible product you do not want from a disreputable monopolistic corporation that pays regular bribes to your elected representatives in the form of campaign “contributions” is specifically listed anywhere in Article I.

source: http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/

[thotzRthingz]

7. 1993 - Clinton's attempt @ health care reform deemed "constitutional" by his DoJ

I am no lawyer, and certainly am no legal expert, but such questions weigh heavily on my mind:

How does the current 2009 proposed MANDATE differ from Clinton's?

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

The proposed Health Security Act is well within the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause, and it does not violate Tenth Amendment or other principles of federalism.

The proposal contains no unconstitutional takings of private property or infringement of liberty interests.

The proposed delegation of administrative authority to the National Health Board, and, from it, to state alliances, is not an impermissible delegation of legislative authority.

October 29, 1993

MEMORANDUM FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO AND
ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL WEBSTER L. HUBBELL

<...snip...>

source: http://www.justice.gov/olc/1stlady.htm

[thotzRthingz]

8. this may simply boil down to an OPT OUT, by any state (or all states)... then what?!

About This Video

Title: Legal Review?
Published: Wed, 30 Dec 2009
Description: Are individual health care mandates constitutional?

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

" Is the proposed health care legislation constitutional. Our next guest is looking at possibly suing the federal government over several concerns that he has our guest this morning. Florida attorney general Bill McCollum who's joining me from an hour show from Orlando to explain -- morning general how are you. I'm partner Laurie is this legislation. Violent -- of the United States constitution. Is the individual mandate constitutional your mind."

" Well in my mind -- in the mind of those in my staff who've looked at this it's probably not and the reason why is because it imposes a penalty. On an individual simply for the fact that they do not a purchase or do not have health insurance that's what is the Senate bill over the house bill. And one version is a fine the other version is attacks but in both cases there's no activity on the person involved in other words. It's a living tax its attacks on you just for living it just says hey. You don't have insurance then we're gonna find you for not having insurance or we're gonna punish you for not having insurance. And so it -- you know the powers of the constitution are enumerated to congress. In the in the constitution -- states it says these are the enumerated powers in if you don't have those powers set forth. The congress can't take certain action. And it's the consensus that our office that it's not constitutional what is now proposed in terms of this mandate individual mandate. All people to purchase insurance now I've gone out asked my fellow attorney generals across the country. To join us and further analysis site. Not made a final decision on what to do with this but. I do wanna raise it I sent a letter all of them yesterday. And I hope that we get some the best brain power in the -- business to sit and talk about this and see what happens. Assuming of course this legislation becomes law and one of these versions as in the final. Final legislation."

<...snip...>

source: http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/28147606/legal-review.htm

[AllentownJake]

2. I hope if the court is going to hear it, they hear it after the signing ceremony

It would be very destabilizing if the plan begins implementation only to have the court rule the law unconstitutional.

[thotzRthingz]

4. I hope they get their ducks-in-a-row, so that any "signed bill" would survive such challenges

[AllentownJake]

5. The mandate provision will face a challenge

It is a rather unprecedented expansion of federal powers and upheld or ruled unconstitutional I want the court to provide legal guidance onto the limits of such a power.

[thotzRthingz]

6. that's where BUSH's DoJ failed miserably (in fact, some say criminally)

I sincerely hope that this thing gets a thorough PUBLIC legal scrubbing, before OBAMA even considers signing it.

[thotzRthingz]

9. and then again, there's this (is Obama simply playing an excellent game of chess?)

"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
- then presidential candidate: Barack Obama, March 2007

source: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

[harun]

10. I hope not.

[freddie mertz]

11. K & R. This extortion must not stand (I hope not anyway).

Plus, passing it may well be political suicide for the Democrats, which would not be a good thing.

[customerserviceguy]

12. The Supreme Court has already ruled

that government can take private property to turn over to a developer for the "common good". They'll cite that case as precident when it comes to mandated premiums to health insurance companies.