By de Andréa
These are no longer your representatives:
Whether the people want a government dependant healthcare system or not, is of no interest to the representatives of the new Socialist America.
The question is…Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional in the old America of the past that we have come to know and love?
Under The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of 1791, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care, making even ‘Medicare’ and ‘Social Security’ unconstitutional.
Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, said that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution. "The best way to look at it is that it doesn't apply to you," he said. “The constitution doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government; moreover, it sets the boundaries of what the Federal Government can and cannot do."
In debating whether health care is constitutional, citizens must look to the founding document to --- (1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or – (2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of
the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The last power, dubbed the "Necessary and Proper Clause," does not grant the federal government unlimited authority, but gives it some leeway for certain things – only as long as those actions apply directly to the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers.
A good example of a necessary and proper power in action is the authority to establish post offices listed in Clause 7.
Article I, Section 8, gives the federal government the power to build post offices, But it doesn't specifically state that it can go out and buy land to build post offices or hire labor to build post offices. Those actions would be necessary and proper and, more importantly, lesser than the main power. So, if they were only able to create a post office, but they couldn't buy the land or the tools or the labor to do it, they'd never get the post office built.
When you think of what is necessary and proper to carry out a specifically listed or enumerated power, it has to meet two criteria: It has to be directly applicable, and it also has to be lesser than the enumerated power.
Some critics point to the "general welfare" stipulation in Clause 1 as a key provision granting the federal government the authority to regulate health care. However, in The Federalist No. 41, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," argued that "general welfare" in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant.
Madison asked rhetorically, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? He continued, "Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
Madison sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the "general welfare" clause opened the door to unlimited abuse.
The Federalist Papers were public arguments to try to convince people to ratify the Constitution. They weren't just writing about the general welfare clause for the heck of it. There was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would 'support the general welfare.
Referencing the "general welfare" concerns, Madison even accused critics of "labour[ing] for objections" by "stooping to such a misconstruction."
It wasn't just the opponents of the Constitution saying there had to be limits to this. It was the proponents of the Constitution who were saying, in order for it to be general welfare, it must apply to one of the enumerated powers
No federal authority
Because the power to regulate each citizen's medical care is not included among enumerated powers, and neither is Social Security. The federal government does not have the authority to impose a single-payer system. You have to look to the Constitution and ask, 'Is health care listed? The answer is an emphatic No! It's not. Is health care directly necessary and proper to carrying out any of the listed powers such as creating post offices and national defense? No it is not!!!.
Furthermore the 10th Amendment, which states: “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”
While the government has overstepped its bounds in many cases and used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, that provision must not be ignored.
No one has ever repealed the 10th Amendment . They do it by judicial fiat, but nonetheless it still exists."
'Equal Protection Clause' of 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Some proponents of federal health care have argued that every citizen must be treated equally, and the current health care system is an example of gross inequality that runs contrary to principles of the 14th Amendment. They say wealthy people are able to afford and obtain medical treatment while the less fortunate are left to suffer when they are unable to pay for an operation or treatment.
That argument would lead to a slippery slope where you could say everyone should have the exact same car. Then we should have the same guarantee of transportation to get to work, the same guarantee of food and shelter. Should we all have equal homes? I mean, if someone wants to make that argument, they have to make some serious changes to the Constitution to authorize it. Not only that, America would not exist as a free capitalistic country, it would instead be a Socialist Dictatorship, could this be the purpose and direction we are heading?
Regardless of their political affiliation or position on health care, citizens must ask themselves whether they truly want a government that has no limits.
No matter what side you are on, you don't want a government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it becomes dangerous. This is what the Founding Fathers and the entire founding generation had to fight against – a king who could set his own rules and make them up as he goes. Rules may not be a wonderful thing, but when you allow government to do whatever it wants, you have the assurance of tyranny.
President Gerald Ford once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
Amending the Constitution
Some critics say the Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that would adapt to changing times and since health care is a modern-day issue the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, they argue, the federal government must step in and provide a single-payer system. I find it interesting that they didn’t have health problems in the 1700’s.
With regard to the "living document" argument, that is what the amendment process is for. However, he said, lawmakers won't propose a health care amendment because they know it will not pass.
They just don't propose it because, if they did, that would make it a much more serious discussion. The discussion wouldn't just be about helping the poor people – which is obviously a good motive for the people who really believe that. .Instead, the discussion would be about the proper role of the government, which is the whole point. Should it be involved in this at all?
States rights move to nullify federal health care
Activists and state legislators are now focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care "reform" and stop federal usurpation of state rights. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states. This may be our only alternative, to exercise our constitutional rights to the point of session.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This whole issue of whether or not ‘Federal Health Care’ may or may not be constitutional, may be a moot point since this new Social Communist administration of Obama totally ignores the fact the Constitution of the United States of America even exists.
In case you missed my article titled ‘The House Health Care Bill’ It is a must read.
Something to watch for:
No I didn’t…