Do you believe the Constitution has been violated?

[KnitWit]

Okay, this is NOT a bait question.

 

We are homeschoolers. I'd love to hear what ALL viewpoints have to say on this topic that is ALL OVER the news, FB, blogs, boards, etc, etc.

 

Do you believe that the Constitution has been violated with this healthcare bill?

 

I guess I'd have to also ask if you have read/studied it, or not. (meaning the Constitution) Not because if you don't think it has been violated I will assume you haven't, but because I don't want to be assuming *anything* up front. :)

 

How much do you think it matters?

 

Does the end justify the means?

 

Please be nice and civil. :) Let me say up front that I don't align with anyone really. I have my own potpourri of views that can't be *plugged in*. I really do suspect that many others do as well and we are all sick of *party rhetoric*, so try to leave that at the door no matter *which* side you are on. Healthcare is an emotional topic for MOST. But especially for those with children with pressing issues. Let's acknowledge that up front too.

 

I really want to know what people think. :) I have no agenda, just :bigear:

Edited March 23, 2010 by MSPolly
clarification

[Parrothead]

Without getting too political, yes, I believe the health care bill and several other laws in the past 75 years violate the Constitution.

[Retired]

Without getting too political, yes, I believe the health care bill and several other laws in the past 75 years violate the Constitution.

 

:iagree:

[Joker]

Both of my dds have lung issues that would fall under pre-existing conditions. I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

[EmilyK]

No, I don't think it did, and the law school I went to was moderate to conservative politically. In fact, I think the vast majority of mainstream constitutional scholars would agree with me on that. I have pretty mixed feelings about the bill, so I'm not biased by that (but of course biased in the ways we all are).

[OnTheBrink]

Yes.

[Vida Winter]

Yes. I do believe it was violated.

[Slartibartfast]

No.

 

Sure don't buy a home or a car but it isn't ethical to just leave people to die who cannot pay.

[Cammie]

Both of my dds have lung issues that would fall under pre-existing conditions. I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

 

 

This is what I have been wondering about - do people who think this way believe in general that ALL taxes violate the Constitution? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Or is there something about this particular program?

[asta]

Without getting too political, yes, I believe the health care bill and several other laws in the past 75 years violate the Constitution.

 

:iagree:

 

 

a

[i.love.lucy]

 

This is what I have been wondering about - do people who think this way believe in general that ALL taxes violate the Constitution? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Or is there something about this particular program?

Good question Cammie.:bigear:

[mommyrooch]

This is what I have been wondering about - do people who think this way believe in general that ALL taxes violate the Constitution? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Or is there something about this particular program?

 

Great questions! I too would love to know the answer to this. :bigear:

[mommyrooch]

I do NOT believe that it violated our Constitution and yes, I have studied the bill. ;)

[Parrothead]

This is what I have been wondering about - do people who think this way believe in general that ALL taxes violate the Constitution? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Or is there something about this particular program?

Not all taxes. There needs to be money to pay for infrastructure, the military, courts, etc. As for the things you mentioned, I do think they violate the Constitution. Those and a few laws on the books today.

 

I'm not going to debate the subject. I won't change anyone's mind. I don't feel like getting banned or in an argument. But that is my take on the subject.

[Mrs Mungo]

I do NOT believe that it violated our Constitution and yes, I have studied the bill. ;)

 

I agree!

 

I'm on my phone or I would say more.:tongue_smilie:

[Cammie]

I appreciate your response.

 

If a person feels all or most taxes are unconstitutional - then I don't feel that it speaks to the particular issue of health care reform. I can now see that you have a blanket opposition to all sorts of government mandates. Ok that helps me understand your POV.

 

I was very surprised with the number of people who did say on the board that this health care reform bill was "unconstitutional" or the death of the Constitution. I have yet to see a single specific argument about HOW it is unconstitutional. I would really love to be educated on that. My law school was flaming liberal so perhaps I don't have the ability to see the other side on my own!

 

:bigear:

[KnitWit]

Do come back Mrs. Mungo :)

 

Again, Parrothead, I had no debate or argument in mind. Thank you for sharing.

[StephanieZ]

No, I don't think the Constitution has been violated.

 

No, I haven't read the entire bill.

 

I am confident in our gov't system and confident that if the Constitution has been violated in some way that I don't know about, that the Supreme Court will rectify it.

 

Personally, I am delighted to see our legislature actually legistlating something significant. That is their duty, after all.

 

Next up: finance reform. Hope we can actually pass something significant there as well.

 

We are imperfect, but overall, I believe our system works. I have faith, even if I am disappointed sometimes.

[KnitWit]

And thanks for your questions Cammie.

 

I am like you. I want to *understand* all the different points of view. :)

[KnitWit]

***Oops!***

 

I did not mean "Have you read the bill?", but "Have you read the Constitution?"

[mommyrooch]

Not all taxes. There needs to be money to pay for infrastructure, the military, courts, etc. As for the things you mentioned, I do think they violate the Constitution. Those and a few laws on the books today.

 

I'm not going to debate the subject. I won't change anyone's mind. I don't feel like getting banned or in an argument. But that is my take on the subject.

 

So it is okay to take peoples money and use it for "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." but it is not okay to take peoples money to help other people? :confused:

 

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :tongue_smilie: I guess my priorities are different than yours. I personally believe that systems that help people are vastly more important than "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." Don't get me wrong, these things are vitally important too but IMHO they are not as important as helping our fellow man.

 

Like I said, agreeing to disagree. :D

[mommyrooch]

***Oops!***

 

I did not mean "Have you read the bill?", but "Have you read the Constitution?"

 

Yep! Read that one too. :D

[Slartibartfast]

So it is okay to take peoples money and use it for "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." but it is not okay to take peoples money to help other people? :confused:

 

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :tongue_smilie: I guess my priorities are different than yours. I personally believe that systems that help people are vastly more important than "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." Don't get me wrong, these things are vitally important too but IMHO they are not as important as helping our fellow man.

 

 

 

I agree.

 

nak

 

 

editing: yes, I have studied the Constitution as well as the personal writings of several of the ff

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[Cammie]

Ok, a few more questions:

 

Are you opposed to reform because it is unconstitutional or do you believe it is unconstitutional because you oppose reform?

 

Also, if there was a constitutional amendment along the lines of "The federal government shall be granted the right to require health insurance of all citizens" would you still oppose the reform?

 

Just trying to understand the contours of the argument. Thanks!

[Audrey]

No, I don't think it did, and the law school I went to was moderate to conservative politically. In fact, I think the vast majority of mainstream constitutional scholars would agree with me on that. I have pretty mixed feelings about the bill, so I'm not biased by that (but of course biased in the ways we all are).

 

:iagree: No. It didn't violate the Constitution.

[newlifemom]

So it is okay to take peoples money and use it for "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." but it is not okay to take peoples money to help other people? :confused:

 

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :tongue_smilie: I guess my priorities are different than yours. I personally believe that systems that help people are vastly more important than "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." Don't get me wrong, these things are vitally important too but IMHO they are not as important as helping our fellow man.

 

Like I said, agreeing to disagree. :D

 

It's not that simple though. I have no problem helping people and do all the time. I see it as more of a local thing even church/local community directed though and not gov't directed. I realize there are probably a lot problems with that, and I am not in a position to defend it, [ Not well read enough, and it's too late :tongue_smilie:] but I see the community, specifically the church, as the resource for those in need, not Uncle Sam.

 

Leaving now.

:auto::D

[ciyates]

Yes it violates the Constitution. Yes I have read both, no my degree isn't in Constitutional law but 4 of the people I studied the bill with do have law degrees that specialize in Constitutional law.

 

You are required to own home insurance because it is a requirement for your mortgage.

 

Every state offers the ability to be self insured when it comes to your car and home.

[Cammie]

Ok, but HOW does it?

 

:bigear:

[asta]

So it is okay to take peoples money and use it for "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." but it is not okay to take peoples money to help other people? :confused:

 

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :tongue_smilie: I guess my priorities are different than yours. I personally believe that systems that help people are vastly more important than "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." Don't get me wrong, these things are vitally important too but IMHO they are not as important as helping our fellow man.

 

Like I said, agreeing to disagree. :D

 

Hmm.

 

I wonder how many people sitting in Hawaii in 1941 would have agreed with the unimportance of the nation's military.

 

Or the right to vote for women and blacks.

 

Or the Eisenhower interstate highway system allowing for the transport of food and goods from one end of the country to the other.

 

Yep. Not nearly as important as the amorphous "helping our fellow man".

 

If this nation really wants to "help our fellow man" in the form of "universal health care", let 2/3rds of the states sign on to it.

 

 

a

[amydavis]

Hmm.

 

I wonder how many people sitting in Hawaii in 1941 would have agreed with the unimportance of the nation's military.

 

Or the right to vote for women and blacks.

 

Or the Eisenhower interstate highway system allowing for the transport of food and goods from one end of the country to the other.

 

Yep. Not nearly as important as the amorphous "helping our fellow man".

 

If this nation really wants to "help our fellow man" in the form of "universal health care", let 2/3rds of the states sign on to it.

 

 

a

 

:iagree:

[amydavis]

Ok, but HOW does it?

 

:bigear:

 

It is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require an individual to buy health insurance. I understand that most people want health insurance, but this will force you to have it, whether you want it or not. It is not the same as having to buy car insurance - if you don't want car insurance, you don't buy a car. There is the choice for the person to make. The only way to avoid having to buy health insurance, is to avoid being born... I know that to most people, the idea of not having insurance seems crazy,

(and I do have health insurance through dh's employer) - but I believe in an individual's right to choose. The constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, but does not give the right to force the citizenry to purchase things against their will.

[Holly IN]

Without getting too political, yes, I believe the health care bill and several other laws in the past 75 years violate the Constitution.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[KnitWit]

Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has been violated?

 

OR Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has provided for the federal government to act in this manner?

[lollie010]

The analysis of constitutionality would likely fall on the distinctions between federal and state functions, the federal authority to direct state action and the federal authority to govern interstate commerce. Legally these doctrines have no real meaning except as they are interpreted by case law precedent. I suspect that the next 15 years of my life and livelihood will be devoted to working all this out in the system. Whether I agree or disagree with the reform would not effect whether I believe it will stand up to a constitutional challenge. Interesting times!

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

It is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require an individual to buy health insurance. I understand that most people want health insurance, but this will force you to have it, whether you want it or not. It is not the same as having to buy car insurance - if you don't want car insurance, you don't buy a car. There is the choice for the person to make. The only way to avoid having to buy health insurance, is to avoid being born... I know that to most people, the idea of not having insurance seems crazy,

(and I do have health insurance through dh's employer) - but I believe in an individual's right to choose. The constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, but does not give the right to force the citizenry to purchase things against their will.

 

:iagree:

 

It especially does not have the right to force citizenry to purchase things from private business against their will. It might sound counter-intuitive, but it could have been more constitutional to include a public option or even to provide universal health care, even though I'm not thrilled with that.

 

Some critics claim that this bill is solely to raise revenue in the short term, and in the long term we will end up with universal health care because of skyrocketing health care costs and law suits about constitionality.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

It is judicially unprecedented "to force someone under pain of federal fine and/or imprisonment to purchase something from a private party simply as a consequence of being alive." (a quote from another site.)

Edited March 23, 2010 by Virginia Dawn

[Quiver0f10]

Both of my dds have lung issues that would fall under pre-existing conditions. I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

 

 

What she said.

[mommaduck]

Both of my dds have lung issues that would fall under pre-existing conditions. I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

 

:iagree:

[TN Mama]

Hmm.

 

I wonder how many people sitting in Hawaii in 1941 would have agreed with the unimportance of the nation's military.

 

Or the right to vote for women and blacks.

 

Or the Eisenhower interstate highway system allowing for the transport of food and goods from one end of the country to the other.

 

Yep. Not nearly as important as the amorphous "helping our fellow man".

 

If this nation really wants to "help our fellow man" in the form of "universal health care", let 2/3rds of the states sign on to it.

 

 

a

 

:iagree: This is how I feel as well.

[Mommyfaithe]

Okay, this is NOT a bait question.

 

We are homeschoolers. I'd love to hear what ALL viewpoints have to say on this topic that is ALL OVER the news, FB, blogs, boards, etc, etc.

 

Do you believe that the Constitution has been violated with this healthcare bill?

 

I guess I'd have to also ask if you have read/studied it, or not. (meaning the Constitution) Not because if you don't think it has been violated I will assume you haven't, but because I don't want to be assuming *anything* up front. :)

 

How much do you think it matters?

 

Does the end justify the means?

 

Please be nice and civil. :) Let me say up front that I don't align with anyone really. I have my own potpourri of views that can't be *plugged in*. I really do suspect that many others do as well and we are all sick of *party rhetoric*, so try to leave that at the door no matter *which* side you are on. Healthcare is an emotional topic for MOST. But especially for those with children with pressing issues. Let's acknowledge that up front too.

 

I really want to know what people think. :) I have no agenda, just :bigear:

 

yes. I believe the Constitution has not only been violates, it has been trampled and our forfathers (on both sides of the aisle) would be rolling in their graves. This whole mess looks to me like the culmination of 3 generations of the Modern Schooling System. There...I said it.

 

~~Faithe

[Parrothead]

There...I said it.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

 

I'll be back soon to answer the questions directed at me. I was up til after 2 and am not coherent enough to make a lot of sense yet. Let me finish my Pepsi and have a decent amount of caffeine flowing through my veins.

[Julie in Austin]

I was thinking about this this morning:

 

Right now, the federal gov't mandates that you have a child. If you don't, you will have a $1000 penalty on your taxes.

 

(Translation: there is a $1000 child tax credit.)

 

Given that no one has seriously challenged the constitutionality of the above, I don't believe that the challenges to the health care bill will work. Health care is stated as a negative ("you must buy . . . ") instead of a positive for the child tax credit ("if you have children . . .") but the net effect is the same. The idea that the fed gov't can penalize/reward certain behaviors has a long precedent.

[KnitWit]

yes. I believe the Constitution has not only been violates, it has been trampled and our forfathers (on both sides of the aisle) would be rolling in their graves. This whole mess looks to me like the culmination of 3 generations of the Modern Schooling System. There...I said it.

 

~~Faithe

 

You are not alone in this. Actually, it was hearing this a number of times that prompted my desire to see what everyone thinks about the Constitution. The people I heard make this statement feel that due to *most likely* having come up in the PS system, they have doubts that our elected officials have ever READ the document. (Their words)

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I was thinking about this this morning:

 

Right now, the federal gov't mandates that you have a child. If you don't, you will have a $1000 penalty on your taxes.

 

(Translation: there is a $1000 child tax credit.)

 

I don't view this as being equivalent to the health insurance bill. Anyway the child tax credit lasts only until that child turns 17, then you no longer get the credit. The health insurance mandate begins at birth and ends at death.

[laughing lioness]

Hmm.

 

I wonder how many people sitting in Hawaii in 1941 would have agreed with the unimportance of the nation's military.

 

Or the right to vote for women and blacks.

 

Or the Eisenhower interstate highway system allowing for the transport of food and goods from one end of the country to the other.

 

Yep. Not nearly as important as the amorphous "helping our fellow man".

 

If this nation really wants to "help our fellow man" in the form of "universal health care", let 2/3rds of the states sign on to it.

 

 

a

:iagree: Yes. I beleive the consitution was violated. Government is all about infrastructure- otherwise you have lawlessness.

[Mommyfaithe]

I was thinking about this this morning:

 

Right now, the federal gov't mandates that you have a child. If you don't, you will have a $1000 penalty on your taxes.

 

(Translation: there is a $1000 child tax credit.)

 

Given that no one has seriously challenged the constitutionality of the above, I don't believe that the challenges to the health care bill will work. Health care is stated as a negative ("you must buy . . . ") instead of a positive for the child tax credit ("if you have children . . .") but the net effect is the same. The idea that the fed gov't can penalize/reward certain behaviors has a long precedent.

 

That is just ridiculous! It is not a penalty...either you get a credit or you don 't. If I am married my rate is such and such...BUT no one is forcing anyone to get married...

 

If I buy a new efficient boiler this year, I will get a credit. If I choose not to, no one will fine me and they won't have to hire 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure I didn't buy one..

 

Absolutely NOT the same thing....

 

 

~~Faithe

[wapiti]

:iagree:

 

It especially does not have the right to force citizenry to purchase things from private business against their will. It might sound counter-intuitive, but it could have been more constitutional to include a public option or even to provide universal health care, even though I'm not thrilled with that.

 

Some critics claim that this bill is solely to raise revenue in the short term, and in the long term we will end up with universal health care because of skyrocketing health care costs and law suits about constitionality.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

It is judicially unprecedented "to force someone under pain of federal fine and/or imprisonment to purchase something from a private party simply as a consequence of being alive." (a quote from another site.)

 

:iagree:

 

 

I was reading a discussion (to put it politely) between anonymous lawyers on a random web site last night - comments to an article - and it was pretty heated. But the gist was that the federal government only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution (unlike, say, the State of Massachusetts). I thought there was a pretty good argument that the Commerce clause, as much as its meaning has been broadened over the years, does not give the federal government the power to regulate an inactivity, i.e. the failure to buy health insurance. That is what some lawyers were saying distinguishes this from the Wickard case. I found that pretty convincing, but perhaps I'm biased. I fully admit to sleeping through my Con Law class.

 

To create an example that was mentioned, of forcing persons to purchase something from a private company, it is laughable to suggest that under the Commerce clause Congress could force everyone to, say, purchase a financial product from Wall Street firms in order to keep them afloat. But that's exactly what the insurance mandate is - forcing healthy people to purchase a financial product so that the insurance companies can afford to cover the sick, i.e. people with pre-existing conditions.

 

It was late and unfortunately I don't remember the reasons they said that the General Welfare clause would not apply, except that it would provide a basis for enacting universal health care.

 

I do think it's a pretty good guess that some hope the private insurance companies go out of business such that universal care is the only thing left to do. In a simple way, with the penalties lower than the cost of insurance and no pre-existing conditions to stop a person, under this law there is little incentive to buy insurance until the person needs it (gets sick/injured). If that happens on a large scale (as one might expect with a number of the currently uninsured - the young and healthy) it is not a financially workable business model.

 

If the mandate was determined to be unconstitutional, I wonder whether the rest of the law could stand, since as a practical matter it's pretty clear that the insurance companies may not stay afloat with the ban on pre-existing conditions.

 

Anyway that's my two cents on the constitutional issues.

[amydavis]

I was thinking about this this morning:

 

Right now, the federal gov't mandates that you have a child. If you don't, you will have a $1000 penalty on your taxes.

 

(Translation: there is a $1000 child tax credit.)

 

Given that no one has seriously challenged the constitutionality of the above, I don't believe that the challenges to the health care bill will work. Health care is stated as a negative ("you must buy . . . ") instead of a positive for the child tax credit ("if you have children . . .") but the net effect is the same. The idea that the fed gov't can penalize/reward certain behaviors has a long precedent.

 

I don't believe these are the same. Yes, there is a child tax credit, but the government is not forcing you to have a child...there will be no penalties, no jail, nothing if you choose not to have a child. Sure you lose out on a credit, but you lose out if you don't have energy-saving improvements on your home, a kid in day care, a certain kind of car, etc, etc...It's still your choice.

 

So no, I see forcing us to have health insurance more closely related to a government that would force us to have a child, or a certain number of children. Which thankfully, we're not there.

 

It's just not the same in my opinion.

[TXMary2]

Both of my dds have lung issues that would fall under pre-existing conditions. I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[TXMary2]

No.

 

Sure don't buy a home or a car but it isn't ethical to just leave people to die who cannot pay.

 

The U.S. isn't a third world country. There are not people dying on the streets. Having health insurance doesn't guarantee survival for people that are ill.

[Julie in Austin]

[Changed my mind on comment.]