• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Obamacare is Seriously Unconstitutional

    On October 23rd, a reporter asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi shook her head and before moving on to another question replied: “Are you serious? Are you serious??” Pressed for a more substantive response later, Pelosi’s press spokesman admonished the reporter: “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) disagrees. In 1994, the CBO said of an individual mandate to buy health insurance:

    A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

    As much as Speaker Pelosi may wish otherwise, the CBO is dead on: the Supreme Court has never validated a federal power as intrusive as forcing all Americans to purchase a service due to their very existence. Sure, the Supreme Court has said that Congress may regulate a farmer’s production of wheat even if he never plans to distribute it off of his farm, and the Supreme Court has said Congress may ban the possession of Marijuana even if it is for personal use, but never before has the Supreme Court said the power to regulate commerce enabled Congress to force an individual to do something just because he existed.

    In fact, the Supreme Court has always been clear that the Commerce clause must have some limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which attempted to reach the activity of possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school. In United States v. Morrison, it invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act, which regulated gender-motivated violence. In both cases, the Court found the regulated activity in each case to be noneconomic; it was outside the reach of Congress’s Commerce power, regardless of its effect on interstate commerce. The case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate is far weaker than either of these two cases. Congress was at least trying to regulate an individual’s activity in the cases above. But the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate” inactivity.

    If the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; require us to grow wheat (10 bushels each), or pay someone else to grow your share; require us to buy whatever they want.

    Many on the left immediately point to state mandates that drivers purchase car insurance as proof of a mandate that all Americans buy health insurance is not new. But car insurance mandates are distinguishable in at least four ways: 1) they are state requirements and states have broader constitutional authority than the federal government; 2) they apply to drivers only, not all Americans (e.g. passengers are not required to carry insurance); 3) drivers use public roads; 4) states only require drivers to insure against injury to other drivers, not to insure themselves against personal injury.

    Yesterday The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies released a Legal Memorandum written in conjunction with Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett and Nathaniel Stewart explaining: Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional. Introducing the paper, Sen. Orrin Hatch noted:

    James Madison said that if men were angels, no government would be necessary and if angels governed men, no limits on government would be necessary. Because neither men nor the governments they create are angelic, government and limits on government are both necessary for ordered liberty. Politics may tell us what we want to do, but the Constitution tells us what we may do and we must keep those separate. The ends do not justify the means for one simple reason – liberty. Liberty requires limits on government power, it always has and it always will.

    Someone needs to explain this concept to Speaker Pelosi. Seriously.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    106 Responses to Morning Bell: Obamacare is Seriously Unconstitutional

    1. John Dvorak, CA says:

      It is a shame that the Commerce Clause is used to justify all these gov't interventions.

    2. David NYC says:

      There has been much discussion and griping about the constitutionality of Obama's policies and how he conducts his office (ie the 40 unconfirmed czars). Has anything been do to challange this in court? Will the GOP actually step up and take Obamacare to the Supreme Court. Where's the beef?

    3. Mary.....Lodi, WI says:

      Someone needs to SOMEHOW get through to the Democratic party that they are DESTROYING the United States of America…..seriously!!! This country is nbeing transformed into what happened to Argentina many years ago. Sad part is not many Americans know it! VOTE THEM ALL OUT IN 2012 AND RECIND ALL THE CRAP THEY PUT INTO LAW! There is NO room for socialism in the USA. We need someone to give us our country back!

    4. gmiller says:

      I'm glad to see that we have a fallback strategy, in case Pelosi and Reid are able to ram through Obamacare, in direct defiance of the People and their Constitution.

      This could stop or delay this awful program indefinitely, in the same way that the Left creates obstacles to our progress. Poetic justice.

    5. WhyJ9, NYC says:

      Seriously! Like the Republicans were worried about trampling the Constitution with Dubya in power for eight LONG years.

      It's so funny how hypocritical you are… all the things you 'accuse' this administration of doing, you did and worse!. I guess that's how you know so much about it.

    6. Charles, West Texas says:

      Ok, everyone keeps point out how unconstitutional these actions are. What do we do now? Can someone file a complaint with the justice department? Can we bring charges in federal court? What needs to be done?

    7. Vet, Arizona says:

      Polosi has commited bigger crimes, like election fraud.

    8. Harry, Illinois says:

      Obama has already taken over the Legislative Branch and is getting ready to do the same with our Judicial Branch.

      Once he does this, we will have to rename his title from Mr. President to??????

      And these 2 branches are allowing him to do it. What is this country coming to???

      Wake up Congress before it's to late. How stupid can U B?????

    9. Chip Ross, Louisvill says:

      Thank you. This is an excellent explanation of why the health care legislation violates the Constitution. It also shows the ignorance and arrogance of some of our legislators and their refusal to be bound by the rule of law and their oath of office.

    10. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      I learn from HF.

      I thought the Supreme Court RULED on issues

      about the Constitution.

      NOW I learn – That is WRONG,

      that it is the HF that rules.

      Just MORE C and GOP BS.

    11. Lawrence, Newport Ne says:

      I may not agree with the full extent of either bills, but what is important is to correct the Healthcare disparity that exists in this nation.

      I recall the discussion regarding medicare and the reluctance of approval of many Americans to approve this program. There was a compromise and the bill was passed. Older Americans are covered even though the program is imperfect.

      Today, far too many Americans do not have healthcare coverage and the burden is carried by the hospitals working through the government.

      We can't get around it…medical expenses are on the increase and % of commercial insurance coverage is decreasing.

      This is the major issue before us not the "public option". Also, the legislation will not take effect until 2012 let's talk about that.

    12. American Patriot says:

      States require drivers to have licenses, but not even states require drivers to have insurance. That requirement is made of owners of the property.

    13. Vaughn Button, New Y says:

      I have read dozens of commentaries concluding that many of this administrations actions are "unconstitutional", as well as most of the mandates in the proposed healthcare "reform" bill – BUT – I have yet to see anyone offer suggestions about what we can or should do about it! Where do we start? Who can initiate court action? Where should it start?

    14. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      When is everyone going to understand Obama and the Democrats are not concerned with our Constitution. As we all know,Obama has stated in past interviews that the Constitution is "restrctive" in his vision to "transform" America. Obama and his minions are more than willing to completely ignore any established doctrien and/or laws to accomplish

      their socialist goal for this country.

    15. richard dallas tx says:

      this woman nancy pelosi sure is driven by power not superior

      to it. she is disgrace to our governmemt she should be fire

      from her position as speaker of the house now.

    16. Millie says:

      From the article: "In United States v. Morrison, it invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act, which regulated gender-motivated violence. In both cases, the Court found the regulated activity in each case to be noneconomic; . . ."

      If that's the case, then would not the recent Hate Crimes law fall into the same category, since it addresses gender-orientation-motivated violence?

      But, back to healthcare, Congress is running amok because it is erroneously interpreting "PROMOTE the general welfare" to mean "PROVIDE the general welfare." If that is what the Founders meant, they would have used the word "provide" instead of "promote."

    17. Jack Ramirez, Sunny says:

      I agree with your analysis, but there is one statement you make, to the effect that states only require liability insurance, that is incorrect. Some states (e.g., FL) require first party insurance. In Florida, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) is a no-fault, first party coverage (it also may cover passengers and others depending upon the circurmstances)for medical bills and lost wages. I don't think this changes the conclusion because, as you note, this is a state requirement and driving is a privilege, etc.

    18. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      BEfore a member of Congress is sworn in, it SHOULD be required that they read the Constitution and sign an affadavit stating they did so. It should also be required that they sign an affadavit stating they have READ each bill presented before they VOTE on it. In 1619 a group of British that had moved to Holland, decided they needed more freedom, they came here to Plymouth, many leaving family behind ans seperated from them for several years. In Jamestown prior, English suffered through a lot of maladies for the same reason. Our ancestors then saw that the King was still ruling from afar, they formed the Minute Men, many families united to fight, in my family they rotated service so the homefronts could be maintained, many wives went with their husbands and helped, we fought hard and sent the "Redcoats" home, later we drafted and signed a "Bill of Rights" and then the Constitution. Admendments have been added but none took away our liberites, Now we have this bunch who want to alter our way of life, take away our rights and turn us into a MArxist nation, I say No, the first shots of the new Revolution were fired in Nov. when Va. and New Jersey elected Rep., conservative Gov.s, we need to keep this movement alive and make sure we get these traitors out of OUR Congress, 2010, 2012, let's unite and end this tyrany.

    19. Jeff, Price UT says:

      "Someone needs to explain this concept to Speaker Pelosi. Seriously"

      Someone needs to sue Ms. Pelosi!

    20. Terri, St. Louis says:

      What about Social Security? The argument against it in the Supreme Court was that it was insurance. (This was the sales pitch to the American people.) The government argued that, in fact it was welfare. The Court bought the government's argument. I do not know whether Medicare was argued but it is a program requiring citizens to purchase old age health insurance from the government.

    21. Prevailer76AZ says:

      Obama, Pelosi and Reid can deny the Constitution until they are blue in the face; their mouthing of self-serving statements makes them nothing less than blatant liars.

      The sad fact of the matter is, educators have dumbed-down the most recent generations, thereby producing a young populace ignorant of 'government by representation' and other historical truths. The result being, too many of the uninitiated are trusting and don't realize the 'king wears no clothes'.

    22. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      IN GOD WE TRUST. Such statement is all encompassing. True, we're not a theocracy. But we are a nation of principle. And the elected officials better get off their elitist butts and realize they've been entrusted as custodians of our founder's mandate. The most important being limited government. There have been far too many trappings of power for decades. Reform is definitely necessary, but not with health care or the private sector. Rather, the nation's government needs to look inward at their own house. It's an absolute mess. Time to start clearing out the century old junk piles collected inside the Beltway's marble halls. As a Texan and American patriot, I'll be one vote to get this process started.

    23. Pastor Stephen Golds says:

      Andrew Jackson had it right in 1832 when the Supreme Court made a ruling in Worcester v Georgia. In effect he said, "They have made their ruling. Let's see them enforce it." The USSC has made many egregious decisions over the years including upholding the McCain-Feingold Act. However, like the fabled story The Emperor Has No Clothes, we can either choose to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes or we can believe what is said about the clothes.

      The USSC has no power if their rulings are ignored by the people or the individual states vote to nullify anything that is detrimental to the state.

      I believe the Confederate States of America's Constitution holds the key. They created a court above their supreme court. It was called the Constitutional Court; if a law was passed that went against their Constitution and it was upheld by their Supreme Court, it would then have to go through the Constitutional Court. This Court had no political agenda; it was there to make sure the Constitution was upheld, not the political machinations of their Congress or Supreme Court.

      Perhaps it is something we should do considering the politics that infuses the court today.

      When the individual states realize that the USSC has no teeth to speak of, they will begin to nullify all of this nonsense that is pouring forth like an open sewer out of Washington D.C. today. Let the USSC enforce any unconstitutional law they want, if they have the teeth to do so.

    24. Carol, AZ says:








    25. Rich, Colorado says:

      Not being a constitutional scholar, but having read the Constitution, it seems pretty straight-forward. Unfortunately I'm not surprised that so many in Congress choose to ignore the inconvenient truth that Hertage makes above.

      The next question is what would need to happen for this mandate to be stuck down (if it becomes law)? Could it be challenged in court before it's enacted? Or would an individual need to bring suit much later proving actual harm? Does anyone know if legal action is being planned if the healthcare bill passes?

    26. A Centracchio says:

      This is unconstitutional so how do we as Americans stop this? Is there a class action lawsuit we can file? If not they will continue to get away with anything they want and this will never end.

    27. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have no regard for the very Document that they took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend"! These are not stupid people, they are very smart and very dangerous! They are systematically getting the Federal Government leveraged into a position where Marshall Law can be declared and in the name of Order, our freedom removed bit by bit. Those who oppose will be herded into camps for "convincing".

    28. Bob Veigel, Arlingto says:


    29. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Ken Jarvis LV NV,

      As I read your comments, and listen to Harry Reid, it strengthens my resolve to never give in or give up.

      The biggest threat to our economic and financial existance is now in place in Washington, D.C.

      And, you can't accept or see that?

      Fortunately, your numbers are diminishing. It is shocking how many people I speak to who voted for Obama and left-wingers who NOW admit they made a horrible mistake.

      These fellow Americans aren't real happy with this change we can believe in.

      If what Pelosi said does not send shivers down your spine – nothing will.

      I guess when the Speaker of the House is not concerned whether we are violating the Constitution, then that is "normal"?

      Don't blame HF for helping to expose what these people really are.

    30. c.c.WestVirginia says:

      everything they have done since Obamah has been in office is unconstitutional as as long as we sit back and do nothing the mob will contiue to run our country into the ground thanks to our president, congress, czars , and the unions….

    31. Thomas Brown, OH says:

      I wonder if, should Obamacare pass, Americans–myself included, will have the courage to take the legal heat that resistance will bring. Constitutional lawyers had better be prepared for the deluge of defense cases that must necessarily follow passage of this unprecedented assault on our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

    32. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv but I think Catwoman, (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi), and Dirty Harry Reid, have to be stopped. Maybe they should ask themselves one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punks?

    33. Whicket Williams Kin says:

      It is time for that part of the oath to defend against domestic enemy's to come into play Who will lead????? When the leaders ARE the enemy we must defend against????

    34. Donna, U.S.A. says:

      Of course it's not right. This is why the writers of the constitution stated that the people have a right to check the Gov if it were to get out of control. And these fellows who did so were talking about their own kind, the "Free" Masons who have dominated our political system from the beginning. They knew from within their own fraternity and private association with their own kind of fellows what kind of potential existed for abuse of power and a Government that would over step citizens rights and freedoms. It is a horrible idea to have the Federal Government control health care. Medicaid and Medicare are already so bad. Controlled to the point you have so few choices, so many health care providers do not even want to accept the MA plan because they simply do not get paid enough for it. You may have to travel clear across the state where you live to get a provider in a certain area that accepts MA as it is now. It is already not a just system for people who have the misfortune to be recipients of Government provided health care. In the doctors office at my last check up there was a sign on the wall of the examining room which stated that Medicare policy requires that doctors not be doing unnecessary procedures, and that they have determined that an annual check up is not medically necessary. This is, to my understanding, for patients who are mostly elderly and disabled. If an annual check up is not medically necessary for the feeble and disabled – then what kind of health care will be being provided by the Government for everyone else? A caseworker for Medicaid/Social Security told me that the new Government plan for everyone else will be better than MA is for the poor and disabled is right now, but with the decreasing of quality of MA coverage as it is now what exactly will that mean, that the new Government subsidized health care will be about the quality of what Medicaid USED to be???? If there are people going without medical insurance that would like the perverse and corrupt Government to take care of them then that should be a choice they can make for them selves, but why on earth would the Government want to take away decent health insurance from those who are happy with what they have? This is not a country that sees nearly everyone going without health care. I do not believe the Government wants to mandate a health care bill because they care about people but because they want control over their health care including forced immunizations, denial of certain health care to certain individuals and to decrease the quality of life for most people since the cost of this plan to the tax payers would significantly reduce their incomes according to what I have heard. It is obviously a plan that will not work and will no doubt end in the unnecessary loss of countless lives. That I believe is their real plan, to control health care, to ration it and to eliminate the occupiers of this nation. Yes, I said occupiers, many of us know that our Government has sold this country to their friends in the various satanic organizations of which they belong. Organizations which are also unconscionable if not unconstitutional. We need, as a nation, as a supposed or so called "moral society" to BAN these secret societies and unlawful organizations from participating in our Government system, we don't need angels to watch over men, we simply need the secret societies out and men and women of true conscience and integrity in offices of our Government in the U.S. As long as they are strengthened in unrighteousness within the confines of their secret organizations they are going to blatantly do whatever these corrupt organizations want done. They are not on the side of the tax payers I believe, because they are more loyal to their international secret society friends. Believe me, if my mother was still alive I WOULD tell her all about this, she very much enjoyed reading true crime stories.

    35. BornInUSA&CanPro says:

      Heritage, where are the Constitutional Lawyers who will step forward with all their knowledge on the Constitution? Tell them to get busy or take down their shingles.

    36. Jeff Gibbard says:

      Soooo….I guess torture is constitutional? Funny how there is an uproar over something that benefits the public good and would have positive impact on the world's perception of this great nation yet there was not nearly this much commotion about the litany of FAILED Bush I, II and Reagan policies. Hypocrites!

    37. Jim, Tejas says:

      Who cares about the constitution? I am so sick of traditions outweighing the reality of the time. Yes, there's this magical piece of paper that has all these magical ideas on it. Guess what? It's not perfect. It's outdated. It was written hundreds of years ago. Think about what the world looked like in the 1700s. Just picture what daily life was like. Why would we cling to a document written of and for those times? Why do people's panties still get in a bunch about this stupid piece of magical paper? We need better health care. Period. I don't care what the constitution says.

    38. Carl Nieman, Crowley says:

      Has the Republican party just gone home. Have the republicans that I and others voted for and helped get them elected just given up and gone home? There are many republican members of the house and senate that are lawyers. So why have none of them demanded and continued to demand that the Democrat colleagues explain how the constitution can be ignored.

    39. nancytheframer, Have says:

      Just because other administrations have done despicable things that were also unconstitutional does not forgive what is being done at this time. The Constitution has been under attack by progressives for decades, starting with Woodrow Wilson, and perhaps before that. I truly doubt that many people have really read the constitution If they would read Article I. Section 8 they would find a list of what the Congress is supposed to do. Also read the 10th Amendment. The states have abdicated their responsibilities to the Federal Government. If Congress would take care of Section 8 they would be busy enough.

    40. Publius Huldah, Cook says:

      Folks, If we rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us what is and what is not constitutional, we are doomed. For a very long time, some of our worst and most lawless foes have sat on that court.

      Further, in various places in The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison say that We the People are the ultimate authority on the meaning of The Constitution.

      And In Federalist No. 81 (9th para), Hamilton points out that federal judges may be impeached and removed from the bench for "usurpations". This shows that federal judges are NOT above The Constitution.

      So, the supreme court is NOT the ultimate authority on the meaning of The Constitution! We need to STOP relying on their decisions as The Final Word on what The Constitution means. Go to The Federalist Papers instead.

      The supreme court does not "go by" The Constitution! They have so perverted it as to institutionalize its opposite principles.

      At the link below are 2 papers which use The Federalist Papers to prove that federal government takeover of medical care is unconstitutional and is NOT permitted by the "interstate commerce" or the "general welfare" clauses.

      A third paper shows why "health care" can NOT be a "right".


    41. Pingback: Morning Bell: Obamacare is Seriously Unconstitutional

    42. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Jim in Tejas, it's that magical piece of paper that allows unappreciative fools to experience the liberties they obviously take for granted. Your careless comment is such a personal affront to all who have sacrificed to ensure you will continue to enjoy such freedom. This is reality.

    43. Springfield Reformer says:

      So you don't care that the Constitution recognizes and defends your right to publicly complain about the Constitution? You don't care that the Constitution recognizes and defends your right to stay out of jail or be otherwise punished without due process of law? You don't care that the Constitution recognizes and defends your right to keep what's yours without due process of law? You don't care that the Constitution recognizes and defends your right to be secure in the privacy of your own home without government intrusion? Just a worthless piece of paper, eh?

      You should have one of those "It's a Wonderful Life" experiences, where you wake up tomorrow in an America without a Constitution and see how you like it. Not so much, I dare to think.

      BTW, that's a good movie idea. Any takers? The protagonist could start out as a poster at Heritage complaining about those nutty constitutionalists opposing universal healthcare, etc., etc. …

    44. Jeanne Stotler, wood says:

      We have the best Health care Money can buy, yes it cost. As Aa nurse I've never seen anyone turned away because of lack of money, Ihave seen those who can pay, not pay. I was widowed at age 44, I had five children from 15 to 5, I managed to work, go to school and I HAD INS> it was a priority. Medicare and Socia Security are not WELFARE, we paid into it with every paycheck, it was suppose to go into an account never touched except to pay recipiants, then somewhere along the line the people on Capitol Hill decided to "borrow from it", def. to borrow means to pay back, so the Feds. owe us, now they do same with the medicare fund. The Constitution is not out of date, that is why admendments were allowed and why it was authored that way. Freedom will never be outdated, a revolution was fought for it and a second one is underway, the first shots(literally) have been fired, lines will be drawn and the first real battle will be in 2010 followed by 2012 and 2014 battles. A good atty. will come forth and hopefully treason and tyranny charges will be brought forth.

    45. Carol, AZ says:

      Jim, Tejas;

      The magical piece of paper you refer to, gives you the freedom, for free speech.

      What was skillfully written into that "old piece of paper" was something called, " balance of power."

      It also provides for, protection over "loss of personal freedom for choice."

      It explains in detail, the meaning of "checks and balances" between the power branches of our Gov't.

      You may have also learn something about "unfair taxation," without legal representation which is why we had an American Revolution.

      When elected offices, voted-in, are pandering

      to special interest groups, that magical piece of paper becomes worthless.

      Like you, " they do not care what the Constitution says."

      But millions of American do care.

      They do understand the tenets of the authors of that old parchment.

      Our Constitution will prevail.

    46. Barb in New York says:

      This is unconstitutional and that's unconstitutional…but who is trying to stop them….no one IN our government. The people are speaking out but where is that getting us. I am sick of hearing 'America are you awake'. We are screaming but our reps in the government are sleeping or don't care either. Heritage thanks for spelling it out again…but so what?

    47. TIM K COUNCIL BLUFFS says:

      ImpeachObamaCampaign.com is a project of the Policy Issues Institute.

    48. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Jeff Gibbard,

      There are some people one cannot reason with.

      No comment on your right of free speech.

      Dear Jim, Tejas,

      It is TEXAS not Tejas.

      So, you don't care what the Constitution says? It is an outdated and written hundreds of years ago?

      What you are saying is that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Jackson-Lee, Durbin, Kerry, Biden, and the multitudes of left-wing liberals have the wisdom to write and interpret a better living, breathing document?

      You, Sir, have no historical perspective. Thus, your comments are understandable.

      The 10 Commandmants were written thousands of years ago. Very few people can live up to their high standards, while keeping them in perspective. I guess those Commandmants are not good examples/rules for society to live by, right? What would you replace them with?

      Lastly, I believe you care VERY much what the Constitution says. Let someone trample on one of the rights it provides and we would see real quick, wouldn't we?

    49. Ben C, Ann Arbor says:

      Owning a car is a privilege, not a right. With privilege comes responsibility – thus mandated liability insurance in Michigan. Health care is viewed by many, including Seantor Stabenow, as a right, not a privilege. Thus the conflict. This will be the justification of "the left" and Ken Jarvis for the government take over of health care. If this happens, then there are a whole bunch of "privileges" I will be campaigning for to become "rights." I have always wanted a second winter home in New Orleans.

    50. Pingback: AntiObamaBlog.com » Obamacare is Seriously Unconstitutional

    51. samuel says:

      This chicago and california regime in office are not concerned about our CONSTITUTION. How can you save the health care system by stripping medicare for old people, then turn around and pay for all abortions in AMERICA. Pay health care for all illegials in AMERICA. Pay for millions that can afford insurance, but would rather have several new cars and new homes.



    52. Dr Duncan Druhl, Fra says:

      Now you write this?

      Now after months of hither, thither, and yon discussions and fractious arguments this comes out?

      After months of to and fro, back and forth, "first they say its in and then it isn't" kinds of verbal legerdemain we "discover" something that many of us considered obvious all along?

      Who is being played for fools, here?

      I suspect the answer is: all of us by everyone; because the non-constitutionality was obvious when Baukus first opened his options.

      More and more it is looking as though we, the people, are being run around the verbal track to distraction while most of the corporations' desires get priority in forming what the legislature that is supposed to represent us develops. Or rather, the legislation is developed for them by "concerned corporate interests"; do you think?

      It is becoming apparent that even the apoplexy-driven opposition voices are merely fanning the flames of useless verbiage. Why? Perhaps it is to keep the hoi polloi distracted while those who pay the bills of the commentators of all political factions do what they want – and opposition hysteria garners enough attention to help people think they are doing something. I don't know.

      There is a "smell" about the opposition sometimes that brings doubts reminiscent of a carefully staged magic act.

    53. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      Of course it is Unconstitutional! There is no difference between the Federal Government telling a Citizen that they must buy Insurance and telling them that they must buy a Buick!

      In answer to the Gentelman from the Great State of Texas, both Sovereign and a Republic, I am suprised Sir, that you do not realise that these United States are a Republic!

      Our Constitution is written as if in Stone, and for very good reason. Perhaps if you kenw this Nations History and understood exactly what a Republic was, you would change your mind.

      A Republic is a Nation where the Government is ruled by Law, not men.

      Our United States consist of fifty Independent Nations joined under a Common Charter we call The Constitution.

      You Sir are confused in believing we are a Democracy, and we are not. Let me see if I can simplify this for you in Texas terms, "A posse' of five come upon a man they believe to be a horse thief. They take a vote and three vote he is, so they hang him. That is a Democracy. In a Republic, they have to take that man into town where he is tried by a jury of twelve and all twelve have to vote guilty, after the Government has proven its case, in order to hang him."

      Now do you understand why our Constitution is written in Stone? It can be changed, but not by Congress, nor the President nor the Supreme Court. It can only be changed, legally, by a Continental Congress, in which the States Houses appoint three members each, or by a Continental Convention, where the Citizens of each State elect those Three members. The Sovereign States get to elect.


    54. Mike Sheahen, Hickor says:

      The reason why Pelosi and/or any of her Comrades and flunkies (including her paid for by us taxpayers "spokeswoman" mouthpiece) refuse to answer the question about our Constitution and their efforts for government to take control of every part of our lives through government-controlled so-called "health care", and instead so arrogantly and contemptuously pose as if to question the seriousness of anybody who asks it and label it as (quote) "not a serious question", is:

      Not only do such so-called "Progressive (Leftist) statists as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and their Comrades, and their statist agenda, have really no allowance and tolerance for anything and anybody which and who would win, or even protect and save freedom from government control, but they cannot factually and honestly answer the question without exposing their determination to impose their statist agenda, evidently especially when both our Constitution and the majority of us, the people, would limit and stop them and their agenda for ever more freedom-killing government power and control.

      Of course one of the Constitutional "check and balance" purposes of the Supreme Court is supposed to be to question the Constitutionality of anything done by members of Congress (the Legislative Branch), and/or by the White House (the Executive Branch) anyway, through strict comparison with and interpretation of our Constitution as written, and declare Unconstitutional, as in "strike down" the wrongs they do for their agenda for ever-more freedom-killing government power and control.

      Plus, we, the people, should hope the Supreme Court would so "strike down" such statist government power and money-grabbing efforts and schemes, such as those by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, including their schemes for government to take control of every part of our lives through government-controlled so-called "health care", including any scheme to force us to buy anything as part of any such schemes.

      However, considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court, and too many things done by the Supreme Court, including things such as the infamous "Dred Scott decision", not only must we, the people, realize that we cannot always count on the Supreme Court to declare "Unconstitutional" the power and money-grabbing schemes of statists, such as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and their Comrades, including any of their schemes for government-controlled so-called "health care", and any such schemes of theirs as any which would require us to buy anything as any part of any such schemes, but we must therefore also realize that it is only too possible that too many in the Supreme Court will give their "non-strict interpretation of the Constitution" and "rubber stamp" approval of such clearly and evidently Unconstitutional schemes which are being sold and bought, with our tax-payer money, rammed-through, and forced down our throats, with or without any such labels as "public option", "(government-controlled) exchange", or any others.

      The bottom line is, as Thomas Jefferson said, "as government grows, liberty decreases".

    55. Pingback: Obamacare is Seriously Unconstitutional « Reboot The Republic

    56. Pingback: The Personal Mandate is Unconstitutional | www.statehousecall.org

    57. Duncan, Duncan, SC says:

      The constitution was wrote for that day and time, but it is just as important today as it was then. Without a law for the land, where would we be? As for as social security goes, I worked for fifty years and paid into it every week. Polosi and Reid need to ask what they would do without their free insurance they get from our tax dollars. And also ask what they would do if they too old or if there was a layof og their jobs. I think we would be better off if Pelosi, Reid, the president would sit out the rest of their term in office.

    58. Martin- GA says:

      Getting " through" to the Democrats on their actions is not the issue. They know exactly what they are doing. We are seeing the fruits of decades of liberal planning. Our schools have weakened the resolve of our kids to respect and demand personal freedoms.

      I heard on the radio this evening a twenty five year old man who did not know who Karl Marx was yet he agreed with the tenants of Marx's philosophy. We are drowning my fellow Americans. I will not accept anything less than a complete rout of Washington in 2010. I spare no candidate in either party. The bits of tolerance we allowed willingly year after year have become a title wave now.

    59. Pingback: Is Obamacare Constitutional? «

    60. poppyal, Veedersburg says:

      So, if it is really illegal, then how do we begin the necessary steps to put a stop to it? Would somebody please tell me that? I would like to know. Someone should be able to stop this…..

    61. harv, Pa says:

      TO: Jim,Tejas I take it you don't like much about this country, its heritage the princepals of government the freedom that our armed services provides for you ( I doupt that you served). The Constiuution was written and approved by men to give the people laws to to be justly ruled and governed by, thats why they fought the war that you appearently know little about. If you want to live in a socialist country MOVE to Argentina I'm sure they will welcone you with open arms .

    62. Me, Texas says:

      Are you kidding me? How is this in any way GOOD for the people. Don't just say 'it is good'. Say HOW it is good. Explain it. Because I have been looking and I don't see JACK ALL that's GOOD about it!

      How dare the government try to force me to buy ANYTHING! It doesn't matter if it's something I would buy anyway. The fact that I'm being denied the OPTION is irritating as hell.

      This isn't being done for the good of the nation. It is simply an attempt to shove one more thing down our throats and IF we sit by and allow it then that is one more string they have to play puppeteer with. Before long they'll have so many strings attached to us there won't be ANYTHING we can do for ourselves. And all along we took it, one bite at a time and let it happen. We will have allowed them to overcome us and take control of our lives. We will live in a dictatorship not a democracy. A place where we are required to do what Hitler… err the President tells us to! This is utterly absurd! Do NOT sit there and let this happen! Socialism ONLY WORKS ON PAPER!

      Have you NOT had your mouthful of bad medicine yet? Spit it out already and get off your complacent ass and tell them NO!

    63. Peggy, Portland says:

      What a relief to hear my feelings being expressed by so many others.

      I am angry with the continous fear & smear tactics

      of the Administration & Congress which show them to be: SHALLOW, UNDIGNIFIED AND WITHOUT MORAL INTEGRITY!

      My husband was a physician& surgeon & I was an operating room nurse. I worked with 2 excellent surgeons who came here from the UK to set up practice. When I asked why they left their home,

      each replied: "Because I wanted to practice medicine. And you can't do that under a gov. run

      system." Later my husband & I visited the UK.

      He found his peers to be apathetic, no enthusiasum

      almost withdrawn. There was none of the usual

      medical banter about interesting cases or new advances being explored. They went to an office in the morning. Patients with #'s were in the waiting room & they saw who ever's number was called. They couldn't get interested becausse they might or might not see that patient again. They felt too old to change their profession & were just waiting for retirement. They also told my husband that 'good' men were not coming in to the profession. (this was in 1969)

      I went to a hospital to walk around & observe. It was like going back a 100 years. There was no modern equipment visible & I noted army type cots in a ward. I worked in an old hospital but we were up to date & we did not lack patient comforts

      & up to date equipment.

      Lack of money seemed quite evident.

      In the 70's I went to work for for BCBS of Oregon & for 5 years reviewed Medicare claims. Gov. policies were cumbersome & inefficient. I soon became patient & physician advocate. End stage renal disease & dialysis patients were added to Medicare and the treatments were new & evolving.

      I had numerous disagreements with denials of physician plan of treatment & attempts to reduce level of care. There were verbal encounters with

      Boston & I was angry at times. But I won some of the battles. During that 5 years I was never able to make contact with a physician advisor that was handing down the decisions I was receiving & this always disturbed me.

      At that time the gov. was going to simplify the paper work & the language so patients could understand it. Well I became a recipient of Medicare in '96 & they hadn't improved or changed a thing. Part of my first claim was denied. Well

      they got an earful about incorrect coding & that

      their denial was in error. They didn't give me any argument. Then I called the hospital business

      office & told them (unless Medicare had changed a law) how to code the procedure so they wouldn't have this hassle again.

      Also worked private medical insurance & GOV. INTRUSION IS PART OF THE PROBLEM THERE. HELP US GET THEM OUT!


    64. Dennis A. Social Cir says:

      The dems are willing to do what ever it takes to have their way with this country. We as voters and citizens must turn out at the polls in 2010 and show them the street, the smae must be done with obama when the time comes. We are not a socialist country and I for one do not want to be part of a socialist country. VOTE!!!!!

    65. Jim U.- New Haven says:

      Hey Ken Jarvis. Just read what Peggy from Portland wrote and then tell us that HF and all those of us who read the column daily are wrong to be concerned about where Obama and his gang are taking this country. You are treating this like a game where your side scores points by being the anti-Bush. IT'S NOT A GAME!!!!! these policies will result in what Peggy described, and our children and grandkids will never enjoy the liberties that we experienced. Admit it!!! Your guy is in way over his head!(or, pay grade)

    66. Chuck D says:

      I would like all U.S. Citizens to be required to read and test out of knowledge of the Constitution of the U.S. As a government teacher I made sure my students understood the idea behind the Constitution, a rule of laws for the nation to build on level by level etc. If a city code is not legal under the State Constitution it is gone, or if the State Constitution is not legal under the U.S. Constitution it is gone. The Health Care Bill as much as I have read seemingly is not legal under the U.S. Constitution so it should be gone also. Remember vote 11/2/2010

    67. Don, Michigan says:

      Ozzy6900, Again you are right on the money. My hat off to you.

    68. J. White, retired [c says:

      "UnConstitutional"- Yes, indeed, but that is not going to stop those democrats/fools who want socialism for you and me, but, NOT for themselves…afterall, folks- they're better than us- just ask them and watch them. The Soviet Union in the USA.????….the fool liberals think Gorbachev was the one who brought down the evil empire;….therefore, IF this is how they "Think", then we need to remove them from power permanently.

      The situation now requires the rest of us to take serious actions- first- throw all the useless human fecal matter- aka- members of Congress out in three Great Flushes- starting in 2010.

      The Ides of November should bring shudders to those who think that WE need people with "political careers". The dismiss them without remorse or regtret as a few igth actually be of value. OUR Constitution allows US to do this..

      It is high time that those of us who read and learned the Constitution in grade school- put it into serious action. The arrogant miscreants in Congress cannot stop us from doing so. THEN, the next step in 2010 is to impeach this impossibly arrogant narcissist from our Office. So many of his words are treasonous………

      Then severely curb any further actions by this would-be dictator- the Empty Suit. Never before has this country had to endure such arrogance and narcissism in OUR Office.

      Second- Cut out all do-gooder "social" programs designed specifically by the white liberals to garner votes from the inept and idle merely to stay in power. Only Medicare and Social Security- that government confiscation of personal wealth- should survive.

    69. Pingback: The Personal Mandate is Unconstitutional «

    70. Stuart, Atlanta GA says:

      My parents paid property tax every year that funded the public school I was forced to go to. IF my parents had more money, they could have sent me to private school, but they still would have paid the tax which supported the public option. Sounds like individual states should decide for themselves. They already do so w/ education and thus have state to state discrepancies. Let them deal with individual budget problems.

    71. Stuart, Atlanta GA says:

      How did Ozzy6900 make it past moderation? Its Martial Law, or the Marshall Plan. Not Marshall Law. Although Martial Law preceded the Marshall Plan in West Germany after World War Two. Haha, I hope this Don character was being sarcastic.

    72. Max says:

      Sign of the times… Thank the greedy insurance companies.

    73. Pingback: What Has Obama Accomplished? - nancyvideo’s blog - RedState

    74. Pingback: The Reality Check » Blog Archive » What Has Obama Accomplished?

    75. Pingback: What Has Obama Accomplished? [Reader Post]

    76. Pingback: What Has Obama Accomplished? [Reader Post] - Conservative Viewpoint Blog —>>—

    77. Pingback: What Has Obama Accomplished?

    78. Harry, Illinois says:

      "FREEDOM OF SPEECH, TEXAS" And Harv of Pa.

      Excellent reply to the Texan "Tejas"). I had read his post and commented, but for some reason or other it was not posted. You are both absolutley right.

      I wonder if he votes.

    79. Pingback: What Has Obama Accomplished « Socialism is not the Answer

    80. Pingback: Obamacare Is The Public Option | Fix Health Care Policy

    81. Pingback: Not Buying What They’re Forcibly Selling : Smart Girl Nation

    82. Pingback: Democrats Violate 200-Year-Old Standing Senate Rules

    83. Charlotte says:

      There has to be a way to stop these radical leftwing idiots from forcing their agendas down our throats before November 2010. By that time, if they, along with the president and his Chicago cronies get their way, we will already be a socialist country. I can only pray that there are a few congressmen and senators that will step up to the plate and do what it takes to keep our Constition intact before they flush it down the toilet. Yes, we can get them out of office next year but if we don't stop them now it may be to late. Let's pray that there are some who will stand in the way of any new legislation that will inflate a debt that we cannot ever recover from.

    84. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      MY Email address is – LVKen7@Gmail.com

      I INVITE ALL HF reads to email me.

      I prefer they talk TO me

      than about me.

      It seems cowardly to post and run

      rather than DISCUSS why you believe the BS you do.

      MY Email address is – LVKen7@Gmail.com

    85. Pingback: Young, Invincible, and Now Forced to Shell-Out for Health Care | Step Down Obama

    86. Pingback: UPDATEx2: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional « Daniel McAndrew for U.S. Senate

    87. Pingback: GOP Tries To Save Constitution « The Divine Lamp

    88. Pingback: Young, Invincible, and Now Forced to Shell-Out for Health Care | Conservative Principles Now

    89. Pingback: Morning Bell: Obamacare’s Constitutional Problems Proliferating | Conservative Principles Now

    90. Pingback: Morning Bell: Obamacare’s Constitutional Problems Proliferating | Fix Health Care Policy

    91. Steve says:


      why don't you name some examples of W violating the Constitution. At least W acknowledged the Constitution. Barry thinks of the Constitution as a Charter of Negative Rights. His latest executive order bypasses the Constitution when it comes to Interpol and any group he organizes under the guise of Interpol. I am so sick of you mind numb liberals. You got your stinking liberal, socialist radical President….quite your whining.

    92. Rick, Burton says:

      I haven't heard any news media( Including FOX NEWS) mention the Constitutionality of Obama not only holding the President seat, but also the United Nations Security Council seat. Is it Constitutional for the President to hold two seats? What better way to destroy the Constitution is to elect a far-left Marxist/ Socialist Professor of Constitutuional Law as President of the U.S. Who knows all the weaknesses, loop-holes, everything inside out about the Constitution. He complains how it restricts him too much from completing his ideas to changing the fundamentals of America. Not one person challanged Professor Obama when he mentioned," Redistribution of wealth"(UnConstitutional), when he spoke to Joe-the plummer and was surrounded by his neighbors. He is playing on the peoples ignorence of the Constitution, governmental process, our history, other countries history of Marxist, Socialist, and Communists philosophies, and political stratagy. Should legal action be taken against a President who fails to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and then punished in accordence to war time laws? His agenda goes against the Amber Grains of America. African-Americans know about their struggles to become truely free. It would be their legacy to get the first black President that would send them all back into slavery. Along with the rest of us.

    93. Pingback: The States Fight Back: Virginia Rejects Obamacare’s Individual Mandates | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    94. Pingback: The States Fight Back: Virginia Rejects Obamacare’s Individual Mandates | Fix Health Care Policy

    95. Pingback: The States Fight Back: Virginia Rejects Obamacare’s Individual Mandates | Step Down Obama

    96. Pingback: The States Fight Back: Virginia Rejects Obamacare’s Individual Mandates | Conservative Principles Now

    97. Pingback: The Core Report // Obamacare vs We The People

    98. Pingback: The Core Report // OBAMACARE Threatens Constitution, Rights, Sovereignty

    99. Richard Michael Marc says:

      My dear Patriots, Americans…

      I vote a vote of no confidence to Obama and his Socialist Dictatorship.

      We The People have every right to charge him with treason against the US

      Constitution and The American People. Need I say More??

    100. Pingback: H.R.3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act - Page 2

    101. Pingback: » California Water Shortage Exposes Big Government Run Amok - Big Government

    102. Pingback: California Water Shortage Exposes Big Government Run Amok | Steve Poizner for Governor 2010

    103. Pingback: singlesski.co.uk » » California Water Shortage Exposes Big Government Run Amok – Big …

    104. Pingback: California Water Shortage Exposes Big Government Run Amok

    105. Rick, Burton says:

      I believe it is obvious, by now, that this Marxist Prof. as President of OUR country should be arrested for treason. The punishment of treason according to laws during war. Maybe then, when Nancy Polosi, Harry Reid, Obama, Rahm Emanual, and Bill Ayers, line up against the wall, we'll finally see some tranparency when the wall behind them appears through them after the last thing they hear, " READY!, AIM!, FI….!" After all, we are a nation of LAWS and these should be applied with honor in preserving our nation in the name of protecting individual rights, freedoms, and liberies. This is a war should be fought with the pen, not with the sword, until the sword is needed.

    106. Constance, Vernon, C says:

      Right now 21 state attorney generals are bringing charges against this health care bill because the mandate is unconstitutional and is over-stepping the states. Florida said their suit could be continued, but the DOJ tried very hard to throw this out of court. Pray that it continues to go forward. You people don't understand that Holder and the DOJ are in Obama's pocket. Court judges won't even force him to show us his long-term birth record. Another lawyer, Philip Berg (I think that is his name), brought suit to make Obama show his birth certificate. He was representing some people who didn't want to purchase insurance and a few other groups. They threw it out saying he had NO STANDING. He has another kind of suit and is waiting for an answer. The court had 60 days, but the time period passed, and then they gave themselves 90 more days. It will be interesting to find out what happens. Our courts are corrupt, all the way up to Washington, D.C. We the people don't appoint judges. It seems our hands are tied. No one in Congress with enough power can get others to get the TRUTH out. How BAD is that?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.