Is the Health Care Reform Bill really overwhelmingly opposed by the American Public???

Originally posted by Snarf



Also - it's not violating the constitution. I love how you, and others, cite this so often, saying it over and over and over again, but never once can you point to where and how.

The Constitution doesnt authorize government to be involved in any form of healthcare, nor does the Constitution give government the power to force people to buy a certain service.

If you want to debate the unconstitutionality of this crap, it would help if you actually knew something about the Constitution first.

reply to post by brainwrek


I know a little about the constitution. So where does it say that congress cannot regulate commerce? Healthcare insurance is Commerce. So, why can't they regulate it?

Because Article I Section 8 clearly states:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

So what is congress doing that is so illegal?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think it's also important to account for the margin of error in each poll. Margin's of 2, 3, 4 and sometimes more are within the margin of error for a lot of polls.

I think, in addition to the question asked, a good guess of the real 'feel' for the public would be a question like, "Should the current HCR bill have additional legislation or less legislation?"

I know people who oppose the bill they just passed because it doesn't do enough...I know people who oppose it because it does too much.

reply to post by whatukno


There are several unconstitutional issues here, but since you brought it up, lets go into the Interstate commerce clause.

Where is your insurance company located? Most likely it is in your home state correct?

Where is interstate commerce taking place in that instance then?

Read the SCOTUS decision from Lopez v U.S.

The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

Now lets assume for arguments sake, it fell under the Interstate commerce clause, it still violates the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, by forcing unfunded mandates on the states, the feds are in violation of the 10th Amendment. The federal government has no constitutional power to order states to fund something like this.

Nor does it have the Constitutional authorization to require private citizens to purchase a certain service, or fine them if they dont.

Thats just for starters

reply to post by brainwrek


Well seeing as how most major insurers are in every single state anyway, and the fact is that the interstate commerce clause says among and not between it's still constitutional.

reply to post by mnemeth1


IMO the Democrats are comitting Political Suicide here . Come the next Mid-Term Elections in November, that will become quite evident .

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

reply to post by whatukno


Assuming you are correct (which you most certainly are not, in fact your contention is laughable), you failed to address the 10th Amendment violations.

reply to post by brainwrek


Well seeing as how Congress does have the right to regulate commerce, that nullifies the 10th amendment argument of state rights, because congress does have the power. See if congress didn't have the power that was expressed in Article I Section 8 then the 10th Amendment would apply.

Ya know what? Read this before typing, it might save you some embarrassment.

reply to post by brainwrek

If you want to debate the unconstitutionality of this crap, it would help if you actually knew something about the Constitution first.

And once again, simply stating that you know what the constitution says about health care doesn't make it true.

Nobody, not one, to this date, has ever produced the wording int he constitution that says government cannot cover healthcare.

Nobody has even tried to make something up and take something out of context yet!

Not ... One.

I believe that says something in its self.

The whole "it's against the constitution" bull# is nothing more but yet another catch phrase the right-wing media and politicians use because it gives their followers a hard-on, and they know it! Doesn't matter if it's true or not

Originally posted by Snarf

Nobody, not one, to this date, has ever produced the wording int he constitution that says government cannot cover healthcare.

Thats because government doesnt have the authority to do everything with few exceptions.

It has limited powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution. Thats it. Nothing more.

reply to post by brainwrek


But it does have the constitutional right to regulate Commerce among the states.

That is in the constitution.

The 10th amendment does not apply because Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by brainwrek

 

But it does have the constitutional right to regulate Commerce among the states.

That is in the constitution.

The 10th amendment does not apply because Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce.

The authority to regulate INTERSTATE commerce.

example:

I live in state A and I need to buy something from a business in state B.

Since your health insurer is located in your state, no interstate commerce is taking place.

That is interstate commerce and is authorized by A1S8

Regulation does not include forcing private citizens to buy a certain product or service.

Your argument fails.

reply to post by brainwrek

the power of Congress under article I, section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states” authorizes a federal statute requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Court in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), its most recent extended consideration of the scope of the Commerce Clause, upheld the authority of Congress to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician.” The Court distinguished two earlier cases, Lopez and Morrison, in which former Justice Rhenquist, writing for a 5-4 Court, had held that the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to pass non-economic criminal laws. The Court noted that those cases had involved “brief, single-subject” criminal statutes rather than a complex, reticulate scheme to regulate “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities,” like illicit drugs, at issue in Raich.

As Mark notes, the Court has recognized for over a half century that insurance is economic activity. The health insurance reform legislation Congress is contemplating is as least as complex as the drug regulation scheme upheld in Raich, and the components of the reform legislation are at least as mutually dependent. The individual mandate is a key component of the reform scheme, as underwriting reform is not possible if healthy individuals can opt out of the risk pool at will.

The Court also noted in Raich, again citing precedents that go back to the 1930s, that the Commerce Clause not only authorizes Congress to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, but also intrastate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” (Justice Scalia, concurring, opined that more precisely, “Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce . . . derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause,” because this authority is necessary to implement the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states.) Thus, even though the individual purchase of insurance takes place locally, it is still, like growing marijuana for personal medical use, subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce clause.

oneillhealthreform.wordpress.com...

i know someoen is going to take this next statement out of context, but hey, thats the only way they know how to win arguments, so here goes:



The constitution, as it was written, did not contain many of the 'rights' we have today. Those rights required AMENDMENTS to the ORIGINAL constitution.

Nobody is complaining about them, but yet, others come forward and complain about other things and then say "You cannot change the constitution"

fine, we should do away with ALL amendments, not just the ones YOU disagree with.





Oh?




Don't want to do away with amendments?

Okay - me either, phew!

The people whose job it is to make those amendments come into being? They agree with Obama. This is proven by the fact that the Majority of them voted to pass this bill.


This isn't against the constitution folks.

No matter how many times you lie and say it is.

There goes your freedom of speech, now go set down and shut up.


[edit on 24-3-2010 by Snarf]

[edit on 24-3-2010 by Snarf]

reply to post by whatukno


Commerce is only to be regulated when it comes with corporations and foreign deals, it doesn't include forcing free citizens into mandate to support private entities.

That is what is unconstitutional, we are free persons under the constitution not entities or corporations.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by maybereal11


In other words the power of the corporate run government that is not longer run by the people is forcing mandates on the freedom of choices of the citizens and this means that the entire HCR is a power grab to control citizens choices and the biggest deception to the American tax payer is after all nothing but another bailout to corporate America at the expenses of our children future.

Very soon the hidden deals that were not in the original bills will come to light.

And they are not for the benefit of the American needs or the American public, they are the sweet closed door deals of big pharma and the private insurance companies.

people we have been deceived just like we got deceived with the big too fail bailouts.

We are and will be forever indebted and slaves to corporate America.

Originally posted by Snarf

The constitution, as it was written, did not contain many of the 'rights' we have today. Those rights required AMENDMENTS to the ORIGINAL constitution.

Yes and this new law passed all the requirements of all the other amendments I'm sure...namely 3/4 majority, ratification by every state.

Hmm wait a minute the bill only passed with 216 votes... that is not near enough majority to clear an amendment(which this was not to begin with), and what's this...37 states are challenging the law, rather than ratifying it.

As you can see even if this was an attempt at constitutional amendment they would have failed to ratify such an amendment.

Seeing as this is NOT an amendment the federal government is very much outside of their constitutional authority.

They cannot pass laws to grant themselves further power, that requires an amendment and when you vote on an amendment a lot more people get involved.

Bottom line, since this was not an amendment the feds are still restricted to the powers and duties enumerated in the constitution, this law is no exception.