Thread: Call your senators NOW -- HEALTH CARE BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Call your senators NOW -- Insist they vote this tyrannical legislation UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! -- Government CANNOT BY LAW MANDATE ITS CITIZENS TO BUY HEALTH CARE!!!!

Nor can a bill single out states for better deals to the bill, like Nelson got for Nebraska, and Reid got for Nevada.

It has to be equal for all states or it is unconstitutional

The most important part is to be clear that about what you are going to physically do to campaign against them and their agenda's!!! Put the fear of GOD into these 60!!!!

Originally Posted by 93camaro

The most important part is to be clear that about what you are going to physically do to campaign against them and their agenda's!!! Put the fear of GOD into these 60!!!!

Make them know that they work for WE THE PEOPLE! I have been blasting my senators for days................THE TRAITORS!!!!!

I was watching Bacus on c-span and he was quoting several professors of constitutional law and they all said it was constitutional under the interstate commerce? or something like that. Anyway I have been emailing senators offices for the past couple of weeks. WE HAVE TO STOP THIS BILL!

This is what I found on that BB.

The Supreme Court has held that the power to regulate interstate commerce extends to trade within a single state if it has a substantial effect on interstate markets. Even noncommercial activities within a state can be restricted if they threaten to undercut federal regulation of interstate markets.

That's the framework into which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) shoehorned his health bill. What he came up with is a paper-thin pretense for asserting extra-constitutional powers.

First, Reid tried obfuscation. Tucked away in that 2,074-page bill is a citation of a 1944 Supreme Court ruling that deemed insurance to be interstate commerce. Reid conveniently omitted any reference to the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed the very next year, which gave states absolute authority to regulate health insurance.

That law's effect has been to bar individuals from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Accordingly, there is no interstate market to be affected, much less undercut.

Reid's second ploy was to pretend that forcing Americans to purchase a product that many of them do not want is integral to the regulation of our national health-care system. Perhaps so, but only if the Constitution's commerce clause, which was intended to eliminate state barriers to interstate trade, becomes the vehicle by which the federal government can compel people to engage in intrastate trade. Not even the Supreme Court's tortured commerce-clause jurisprudence goes that far.

If Congress were interested in using the commerce clause for its intended purpose, we would be debating the Health Care Choice Act, which would permit the interstate purchase of individual health policies. The Democrats, however, bottled up that bill in committee.

They would rather exploit the cartelization of health insurance in selected states to argue for a government-run insurance company. Never mind that a major reason for those cartels is the prohibition against purchasing insurance across state lines.

Finally, Reid would enforce this unconstitutional mandate with an unconstitutional tax. The Senate bill attaches a penalty for not complying with the mandate to the Internal Revenue Code. But the penalty is not based on income, so it's not an income tax. And it's not based on the value of the policy not purchased, so it's not an excise tax. Instead, the tax is a fixed amount based on family size. That means it's levied per person and therefore a "direct tax" under the Constitution, which requires that such taxes be apportioned among the states according to their population, as determined by the census.

The individual mandate would extend the dominion of the federal government to virtually all manner of human conduct - including the non-conduct of not buying health insurance - by establishing a federal police power that is authorized nowhere in the Constitution. Democrats will have legislated a new quasi-crime, and perhaps the sole offense in our history that can be committed only by people of a certain income, since those below the poverty line would be exempt from the mandate.

Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11042

Yes, but what they are doing is twisting the interstate commerce clause to meet their ends. The definition of interstate is between the states. Not within them. If it is to be within them, then there should be an "intrastate" clause, and this was never envisioned by the framers. And here we have another example of the Constitution being trampled under, this time by the Judiciary.

Their decision to extend Federal intervention to operations within a state is not in the scope of the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. And as such should like all bad legislation be viewed as null and void, and the Constitution to be held as supreme. Also, the Judiciary could be held liable for complicity to pave the way for the Federal to intervene beyond the scope of what the Constitution enumerates to the Federal.

In that respect, any Constituional scholar or professor who sides with this unlawful application of the Constitutional enumerated powers is speaking treasonously, and needs to go back and read the documents again, and the immediate history surrounding them, along with the earlier Articles of Confederation and how that ended up a mess.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Yes, but what they are doing is twisting the interstate commerce clause to meet their ends. The definition of interstate is between the states. Not within them. If it is to be within them, then there should be an "intrastate" clause, and this was never envisioned by the framers. And here we have another example of the Constitution being trampled under, this time by the Judiciary.

Their decision to extend Federal intervention to operations within a state is not in the scope of the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. And as such should like all bad legislation be viewed as null and void, and the Constitution to be held as supreme. Also, the Judiciary could be held liable for complicity to pave the way for the Federal to intervene beyond the scope of what the Constitution enumerates to the Federal.

In that respect, any Constituional scholar or professor who sides with this unlawful application of the Constitutional enumerated powers is speaking treasonously, and needs to go back and read the documents again, and the immediate history surrounding them, along with the earlier Articles of Confederation and how that ended up a mess.

Yes all that Reid and Cronies are doing is treasonous and twisted, I posted the article to show what the traitors are TRYING to do. It will not work!!!

The Interstate Commerce Clause

Advocates of the individual mandate, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, have claimed that the Supreme Court's "Commerce Clause" jurisprudence leaves "no doubt" that the insurance requirement is a constitutional exercise of that power.[10] They are wrong.

The Commerce Clause, set forth in Article I, section 8, grants Congress the authority "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."[11] From the Founding, both Congress and the Supreme Court have struggled to define the limits of that authority, but it has always been understood that some limit exists beyond which Congress may not go. To be sure, the Supreme Court has been deferential to congressional claims of authority to regulate commerce since 1937. Yet, even as it allowed Congress to exercise expansive powers over the national economy, the New Deal Supreme Court declared that:

The authority of the federal government may not be pushed to such an extreme as to destroy the distinction, which the commerce clause itself establishes, between commerce "among the several States" and the internal concerns of a State. That distinction between what is national and what is local in the activities of commerce is vital to the maintenance of our federal system.

12

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-182554.html

Originally Posted by April

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Yes, but what they are doing is twisting the interstate commerce clause to meet their ends. The definition of interstate is between the states. Not within them. If it is to be within them, then there should be an "intrastate" clause, and this was never envisioned by the framers. And here we have another example of the Constitution being trampled under, this time by the Judiciary.

Their decision to extend Federal intervention to operations within a state is not in the scope of the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. And as such should like all bad legislation be viewed as null and void, and the Constitution to be held as supreme. Also, the Judiciary could be held liable for complicity to pave the way for the Federal to intervene beyond the scope of what the Constitution enumerates to the Federal.

In that respect, any Constituional scholar or professor who sides with this unlawful application of the Constitutional enumerated powers is speaking treasonously, and needs to go back and read the documents again, and the immediate history surrounding them, along with the earlier Articles of Confederation and how that ended up a mess.

Yes all that Reid and Cronies are doing is treasonous and twisted, I posted the article to show what the traitors are TRYING to do. It will not work!!!

Yes that is a good article on the issue. Long, but a good one. I've read it a couple times.