• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Obamacare's Constitutional Problems Proliferating

    After the Democrats cleared the second of three 60 vote hurdles last night, Republicans ceded enough debate time back to the majority so that passage of Obamacare through the Senate will take place n Christmas Eve at 8 AM. Conservatives have every right to be disappointed that Senate Republicans did not force the maximum amount of debate possible. But they can take heart in a key point of order that will be voted on later today. Sponsored by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV), that vote will lay the groundwork for the possible legal dismantling of Obama’s health program.

    As we’ve detailed before, the very core of the Senate health plan includes an unprecedented expansion of the power of the federal government over the lives of every American. For the first time in history, every American would be forced to buy federally regulated and approved health insurance or face a $750 fine. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in 1994: “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.” The individual mandate and other questionable measures in the bill raise serious questions as to whether Obamacare could survive a Constitutional test:

    Enumerated Powers: Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” which means that some legislative powers were intended to remain beyond Congress’s reach. The Supreme Court recognized and affirmed this fundamental principle from the earliest days of the republic, as Chief Justice Marshall famously observed: “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service. Democrats have pointed to both the general welfare taxing power and the commerce clause as possible justifications for the mandate, but as a recent Heritage Legal Memorandum details, neither justification withstands scrutiny.

    5th Amendment: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Sen. Ensign will argue today: “The Democrats’ health reform bill would require an American citizen to devote a portion of income – his or her private property – to health insurance coverage. … But, Mr. President, if a Nevadan does not want to spend his or her hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else, such as rent or a car payment, this new requirement could be a “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment.”

    Racial Discrimination: On December 10th, the United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Senate regarding racially discriminatory provisions in Obama’s health plan. The letter reads: “No matter how well-intentioned, utilizing racial preferences with hope of alleviating health care disparities is inadvisable both as a matter of policy and as a matter of law. … Ensuring that all Americans, regardless of race, have access to quality health care requires both creativity and hard-nosed attention to data. It also requires staying within the requirements of the Constitution. The current race-based provisions of the Senate Health Care bill display none of these qualities.”

    Unequal State Treatment: Speaking to Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) deal to support Obamacare in exchange for a bailout Nebraska’s Medicaid costs as “disappointing, sleazy, unconstitutional.” Graham is not the only one examining Cornhusker Kickback. The Attorneys General of Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Washington state are jointly investigating the deal to see if special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49 violates the Constitution.

    The leftist majority in the Senate is likely to vote down the DeMint/Ensign constitutional point of order, but the very objection itself will help build a record that courts will look at when determining whether or not Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Senate is not the final arbiter of whether or not the laws it passes are consistent with the United States Constitution. That question was settled over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison. Although it is always difficult for the Supreme Court to thwart what is perceived to be the popular will, polling consistently shows that this legislation faces strong popular opposition. If that remains true after enactment, the majority of the Justices who are inclined to preserve the enumerated powers scheme and adhere to the original meaning of the text will have little inclination or incentive to stretch the Constitution to reach so decidedly unpopular and far-reaching a law as this one.

    Quick Hits:

    • The 150,000 member National Nurses United organization yesterday called the Senate plan, “a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry.”
    • With unemployment in the construction sector already at 19.4%, the construction industry was surprised to learn a job killing employment tax especially targeting them made it into the Senate’s final version of Obamacare.
    • Across all sectors of the economy, businesses worry that a series of new taxes and fees to pay for expanding health-care coverage will push up premiums, particularly for smaller employers.
    • Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) says three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same Medicaid bailout deal Nelson secured for Nebraska.
    • In an Oval Office interview with The Washington Post, President Obama named the Wall Street bailout as the ‘most important thing’ of his first year.
    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    68 Responses to Morning Bell: Obamacare's Constitutional Problems Proliferating

    1. Mason Baldwin III says:

      Just some good advice passed on to me years ago from my mother, figures don't lie but liars can figure. ie. "health care reform"

    2. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      Ensign is under investigation for Zipper Problems

      but he wants THE REST OF US TO ABIDE BY THE LAW.

      Typical GOP Way – the Law DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOP.

    3. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      I forgot to include my Email address


      What is YOURS?

    4. Terry Harrington, De says:

      Conn, You say "every American would be forced to buy federally regulated and approved health insurance or face a $750 fine". The government offers a 3rd option which is to go to jail. Americans could go in mass to their nearest jail and say we decline options # 1 & 2 put us in jail.

    5. toledofan says:

      It's a great thing that people are starting to wake up and decide to do something to stop this train wreck from going farther. Hurrah for guys like the Govenor of Nebreska, Dave Heineman, he put the pressure back onto Nelson and called him out on his lie. In this whole debacle it just amazes me that there isn't one Democrat with any conscience to stand up and say enough is enough. I guess it's clear where they, the Democrats, stand, regarding the Constitution, citzen rights and the welfare of the country. It's all about big money, bribes, payoffs, waste, fraud, spending that is out of control and a distain for the average American citizen.

    6. Whicket Williams Kin says:

      I am tired I cannot see that all of the fighting I have been doing for 2 years has had any impact on anything except me. America is dead welcome to Amerika

    7. spwbt says:

      Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel

      Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

      “This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

      In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

      The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

      “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

      Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

      This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.

      This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)

      The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?

      This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.

      - Sarah Palin

    8. Russell, Spring Tx says:

      My issue today is this: It doesn’t seem to matter how rights or rather correct we are they continue to push and lock us out.

      With that being said instead of reacting why are we not being proactive and setting up a list of what is deemed unconstitutional, illegal and will receive action during the next or rather again the 113th congress. They (new candidates and incumbents) should be campaigning on repeal of the all the issues that have been DEM-partisan and unconstitutional and or illegal.

      Which brings me to another issue, you would think that the President with all the illegality going on that is out in the public eye, how it can be not adhering to him is some way. Secondly how is taking notes for the possibility of impeachment of this president and or the removal of people like Charlie Rangel. I'm just sick of all of it especially when we all agree and still they win…

    9. Tea Party Republican says:

      Real courage would have been for some of the Democrats to buck their leadership and vote NO. This is very poor legislation. It will not help the people it is supposed to help, it will hurt the taxpayer and the vitality of our nation.

      Conservatives need to continue to fight against this bill and next fall we need to remember who voted for this. If the 60 are re-elected we just encourage them to heap more abuse on the taxpayer. They think we will forget. Next fall will tell the story, won't it?

    10. jim delaney - roches says:

      Laying the groundwork for consitutional challenges is fine, but, given all the effectively UNchallenged tyranny which has transpired over the last 11 months, I'm no longer reasonably hopeful that legal challenges to this monstrosity will ever get as far as SCOTUS. Too many Progressives poisoning the judicial well, and it's only going to get worse. Am deeply disheartened by the inroads marxism/socialism has made in our republic in such an incredibly short period of time. Frightening. No longer certain rationality and the Constitution can ultimately prevail. But, thank you for your continued efforts nonetheless….

    11. Mary Lou Tampa, FL says:

      Doesn't Article I Section 9 ("No preference shall be given by any regulation of the Commerce or Revenue to the ports of one state over those of another;…)cover the unequal treatment of the States?

      And, Article IV, Section 4 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government….) speak to the tremendous usurping of power by the congress and this administration????

    12. Madalyn Maloney Foun says:

      I am of the understanding it is against Constitutional law that these Senators do not have to participate in the laws they are making for us "little people"? That is, the Health Care Bill, they are planning for us, so they can assure their votes from the masses. The non-earners. Then they will turn around and declare the illegals, legal.

      They think we are brain dead, we earners can't fight the masses votes.

      This is only the beginning of what they ae doing and will continue to do us "little people" who can't fight the mass vote, as the masses want something free from the government. They feel they are "entitled" to take from the wage earner, the tax payer.


    13. chuck boudreau, burl says:

      i truly hope the republicans and the consertative democrats in the house stick to this and shut down this monstrosity of a bill.

    14. yoel weiss says:

      I don't have enough money to join this great website, but the trueth is here and go on with your great and importent work ,

      Best wishes to allof you,

      Yoel weiss

      Brooklyn new york

    15. Bob, Portland, OR says:

      The tide is turning and Americans are not going to stand for these hustles and hoaxes.

      Keep it up America!

      The "Audacity" of these fools.

    16. Laurence of Louisian says:

      Good commentary overall;however the point at the last regarding the SC possibly noting public opinion against the new potential law is 50/50…

      While the SC is legally bound to follow the Constitution in its decisions, it doesn't always do. It has many times (unofficially) followed public opinion. In this case I will hope so, as the Constitution itself seemingly is at a stage of almost total disregard in the US. It makes for a bleak future for all of us wishing for the days of our Constitutional Republic, short lived as it was….

    17. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Great article Conn.

      You do not need to be a Constitutional Scholar to clearly see this horrendous trampling of rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      All you have to do is get a free copy of the HF Constitution Booklet and read it – many times. If you need a dictionary for assistance no problem.

      Better yet! Encourage your friends and neighbors to get onboard with HF!

      And, no, I do not work for HF or receive a stipend!

      Merry Christmas

    18. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      I said it yesterday and I'll say it again today. WE, THE PEOPLE,

      WILL REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER! Next year, at Christmas time,

      remember to get a stocking and some coal. That's when the Naughty or Nice Campaign will begin. It's too late for this year.

    19. Connie, Ruckersville says:

      I have worked for a family-owned Virginia construction company (residential homes)for more than 23 years. We have just been informed that an Oregon U.S. Senator has inserted a provision in the Managers Amendment to the U.S. Senate Health Care Bill (H.R. 3590), apparently as a favor to the AFL-CIO, to require all construction firms to comply with the bill's employer mandates, uless the firm employs fewer than 5 employees. All other industry types are granted an exemption from the employer mandates if they have fewer than 50 employees. How is this going to help an already struggling industry? How is this fair? How many more "deals" are going to be made by the Washington "mob"?

    20. Jonathan Seid, Willi says:

      The American electorate held it's breath and turned to a Chicago politician to be President. Says a lot about the American electorate. Corruption and patronage and the buying of votes is routine there. Witness the past year out of this White House and this Congress.

    21. LauraBoatright, CA says:


      Jan 20th, 2010, will be another "historic" occasion: President Obama's FIRST State of the Union address. EVERYONE WILL BE THERE: POTUS, SCOTUS, Joint Chiefs, Cabinet, the House, and the Senate…in addition to the First Lady and many important invited guests in the balcony.

      So will the WORLDWIDE PRESS. Many organizers feel that this is an OPPORTUNITY that CANNOT be passed up. We are calling for a LARGE PROTEST, more than 912DC, at the Capitol Bldg. beginning at 3 pm, through the address in the evening.

      We HOPE that the GOP response will be given on the steps, all of them present, with us before them, shouting "HEAR! HEAR!"

      Invision THAT POWER! Can the LSM ignore us? Or worldwide press?

      Short notice? Too expensive? Too cold? We must seize this moment in *our* history. I implore you to join us! Put on a down jacket, wool socks, layers of clothes, a thermos of coffee, and SHOW UP!

      facebook note, full details: http://www.facebook.com/search/?ref=search&q=

    22. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      The Senatores have one more opportunity to stop this madness, come back in January after their 3-week vacation, and simply REFORM the system.

      They have one more chance to display honor and integrity.

      Most importantly, they have one last chance to represent the majority of the people who DO NOT WANT this bribe-pork-laden mess at our expense!

      They are mocking the concept of "representative government". This is the most disturbing aspect and the most dangerous for our freedoms.

      They need to dig deep, accept any blowback from the POTUS and the leftists, show some humility, and do what they were sent to DC for – follow the poeples' wishes.

    23. LauraBoatright, CA says:

      Wrong facebook link: (moderator, please edit)

      correct link: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=21681446

    24. Dennis, KCMO says:

      Another Constitutional issue was raised by Prof of Law Richard Epstein (Univ of Chicago; sr fellow Hoover Institution) in his WSJ article at http://is.gd/5yVSZ


      "Lost in the shuffle has been its intensely coercive requirements on health insurance issuers, especially in the individual and small group markets. Taken together, these restrictions are likely to drive them out of business and run afoul of the constitutional guarantee that all regulated industries have to a reasonable, risk-adjusted, rate of return on their invested capital. …

      Worse still, the statutory rebate is only the tip of a larger regulatory iceberg that permeates the bill. Normally, insurers have the power to underwrite—to choose their line of business, to select and to price risks, and to decline unattractive risks. Not under the Reid bill. … Any insurance carrier that enters Mr. Reid's inferno will lose its financial shirt. …

      The orthodox legal approach was summed up in Justice William Rehnquist's unanimous 1989 decision in Duquesne Light v. Barasch. Duquesne Light allowed the state regulators a wide choice of methods so long as the "bottom line" secured the appropriate rate of return. There's no need to discuss the fine points here, because not one syllable in the Reid bill is dedicated to securing that constitutionally guaranteed minimum rate of return. …"

      His article is based on a longer study released by the Manhattan Institute at http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com.

    25. Harry,Henderson,TX says:

      If this so-call"Insane" ObamaHealthCare is passed tomorrow,Then the Constitution has all ready been trash.Then,theres only one thing left"CW",ya'll go ahead talk til your blue in the face,or hide under your beds,these traders are going to start taking everything ya'll have,

    26. itsover, Lake Havasu says:

      So we are down to challenging this legislation in court and overturning it by taking congress back.

      Neither will be successful for two reasons:

      First, liberals have packed the courts with enough liberal judges that legal challenges will never see the light of day.

      Second, even if we can gain back control of congress, Republicans are too chicken to overturn any of this legislation even if they were able to. When have you seen any big or small entitlement overturned by congress when they were in control. In fact, the last time the Republicans controlled Congress they added a major entitlement, Drug converage for seniors. They say this is okay because it is handled by private insurance companies. Who pays for it? Not private insurance companies. This is how Republicans think these days.

      Bottom line, the United States of America has just become the United Socialist States of America and Republicans can take a lot of credit for this by their actions in the past nine years.

    27. sofiagonzelez, Texas says:

      "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" — James Madison

    28. Joan Sarasota FL. says:

      Obama does not give a hoot about our constitution. He will declare himself king, and he and his goons will rule like Hitler. They all belong in jail now. Seeing we do have a constitution why are we not using that to oust him from office and try all his goons before America is lost forever. Being politically correct will be the death of this country.

    29. beach says:

      Of course, it's unconstitutional. Re Epstein, I would add that the ratemaking structure it imposes on insurance companies is also grounds for a challenge, because that structure has mandates and cost controls but does not guarantee a reasonable rate of return for insurers' investments. That reasonable return hurdle is a standard feature of all govt. actions to create what are essentially public utilities. Moreover, the hurdle also includes a finding that the industry in question is not competitive AND has no reasonable prospect of being competitive. Both of those standards are not met—health insurance is competitive and could easily be more competitive if Congress allowed companies to sell insurance across state lines.

    30. Al Reasin says:

      Throughout the Web I read complaints yet few say what they are DOING to fight this tsunami of freedom stealing legislation. British statesman Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." While it was wonderful to see 1.5 million Americans at the Capitol on September 12th as I believe or the 70,000 the media claimed were there, we have had no where that number since, in DC or any other city. Have we decided that freedom is too hard to work towards preserving? We for some reason find it acceptable to ask those in our military to actually sacrifice as we sit on our couches and yell at our TVs.

      I am challenging those who complain to stop yelling at their TVs, get off of their couches and do something. I believe that those who sincerely believe themselves to be concerned about the direction of our country need to become routinely as active as possible. The Patriots' Corner Club offers one of the few peaceful ways I know of, other than lone picketing of politicians offices which I have done, that individually expresses in action what the people verbalize here and elsewhere. I now issue this challenge to everyone I meet. With the healthcare bill reaching this stage, notwithstanding the massive outpouring of opinion against it, it shows that the time for just complaining directly to our country's leadership, to each other on the Web or to mainly attending mass rallies is past. Anyone can Stand Up For Freedom with little personal sacrifice.

      The goal of the Patriots' Corner Club (http://patriotscornerclub.ning.com) is to have millions of Americans Standing on a busy Freedom Corner somewhere near home, calling for the people to take back our nation . . one corner at a time. Such a grassroots message needs to be pushed on Freedom Corners across this country and every other way imaginable if we are ever to take back our nation and our freedoms.

    31. Richard Cancemi, Arl says:

      There appears to be only ONE Democrat in Congress with the backbone to denounce the Socialist 'Democrats' who have captured the Party. His name is Parker Griffith. Bravos to him! The Democratic Party and its sycophantic press have already begun to vilify him.

      Republicans, You need to show some courage too!!! Stop playing softball and footsie with these Socialist devils.

      All their unconstitutional legislation needs to be Constitutionally challenged.

      Obama and the rest of the anti- Americans in office need to be impeached or, at the least, a campaign begun calling for their resignations. The Democrats got rid of Nixon and many other Republicans by hounding them out of office with their accusations.

      Obama has proven himself to be a far worse President than Nixon ever was! At least Nixon told the truth some of the time!

    32. Charles O McVey Sr S says:

      Ladies, and Gentleman I for years have been telling people in this Nation that this was coming, and for years I have been called everything from a Racist to a fear monger. Well guess what it is here, welcome to Reality 101. This nation is not yet doomed, but it is close to that level. We have an election coming in November 2010, MAYBE. If you do not find true Conservatives to vote for and continue to support the status quo or you refuse to vote, then you are as much to blame for what is coming as the Socialist in the Democratic Party. One thing you all need to learn, Article 4, Section 4 of the Constituion states clearly that this nation is a Republic not a Democracy Read Federalist Papers 10 and 49 by James Madison to find out why.

    33. John, Arizona says:

      Isn't there one democrat in the Senate who has the courage, fidelity and honor to stand up and say, "Enough is enough! Stop the madness!"? Or have they all fallen under the spell of his highness?

    34. Bill Duncan, St. Lou says:

      Sadly, its time to face the truth; this war (not just this battle) is lost. This administration is now openly bribing whoever they need and there is no morality left in Congress or the Senate. The will of the people and constitutionality no longer matter. Its over, and full-blown socialism is less than 5 years away.

    35. Pingback: Sarah Palin to Americans: The Obama Death Panel is Immortal « VotingFemale Speaks!

    36. Publius Huldah, Cook says:

      Look, Folks: This is a very easy question. Congress has no authority to make laws about the medical care of The People because such is not among the enumerated powers of Congress. Furthermore, neither the "general welfare", the "interstate commerce", nor the "necessary & proper" clauses authorize Congress to make such a law.

      And it is NOT TRUE that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of Our Constitution! Our founders understood that judges on the U.S. Supreme Court might usurp powers. This is why it was always clear that supreme court justices could be impeached & removed from the bench for usurpations (See, e.g., The Federalist No. 81, 9th para, A. Hamilton). There are many other passages in The Federalist showing that THE PEOPLE are the ultimate judges of the meaning of The Constitution. The congress, the executive branch and the federal judiciary are, after all, nothing more than our "creature". (The Federalist No. 33, 6th para. A. Hamilton).

    37. Barry Worried says:

      Our God given American freedoms are being taken away by the radical leftist "socialist" movement who openly favor controlling us through policies centered around extreme redistribution of wealth under the auspices of caring for Americans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is all about politicians and them gaining power and controlling us like pets. They want to think for us and aginst our will. This health care legislation puts a severe burden on the backs of hard working producers, yet rewards those low income folks, some who are physically healthy, but don't want to work and simply will not work and produce. I do sympathize with those hard working and patriotic Americans who through no fault of their own are now temporarily out of work. We fellow Americans urge them to "wake up" and vote out the ones who helped put them there and are now creating a much worse environment for future employment opportunities. The Congress could not have crafted a better way to destroy American jobs than this unaffordable and unsustainable health care bill that will become law. Unlike common sense era administrations like JFK and Reagan who cut taxes and created may jobs, the cuurent liberals are now so inexperienced and so naive with blind ideology of pie in the sky utopia fantasies and pipe dreams. They seeem to not realize how much a $Trillion actually is and where it comes from – our pockets and on the backs of millions of small buisness that create (or who will be forced to eliminate) 90% of jobs in America. The current politicians favor gov't spending of our money on waste and have abandoned capitalism and many now are "touched" with a case of wreckless socialism and are all for big Gov't. They must wake up to the will of the People and realize cutting taxes and having policies that support small business in the private sector is the American proven way to create millions of new jobs. Look at 1984 when Reagan carried 49 out of 50 states after conservative policies worked as absolute proof cutting taxes and reducing gov't spending works well in putting Americans back to work. In the next election we need to purge and vote out office those who vote for this bill that is full of corruption.

    38. Charles, The Republi says:

      They want us to be tired, exhausted & give up. Fall to the inevitable. OH HELL NO! "….But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." If this piece of treason passes, it won't be enough to get a simple majority, it needs to be a "veto proof" majority. Given the current state of America, I'd say the odds are getting better. Don't let them defeat you, stay engaged.

    39. Michael Wardell says:

      Tell me why we should or should not add this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

      "Congress shall make no law that applies to any citizen of the United States that does not apply equally to the President, The Supreme Court or any/all US Senators and Representatives, and Congress shall also make no law that applies to the President, the Supreme Court or any/all US Senators or Representative that does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States. All existing laws and regulations that do not meet these criteria shall be declared null and void ex post facto."

    40. Pingback: Hey GOP? Make Mass Senate Race a National Referendum on ObamaCare « VotingFemale Speaks!

    41. Steven Heath, Grand says:

      Isn't this a demonstration of goverment picking winners and losers? This is what will happen if goverment is in control. Do you think Ford will be able to compete against GM and Chrysler? Goverment will make sure the rules are such that their guys win.

    42. Steven Heath, Grand says:

      Isn’t this a demonstration of goverment picking winners and losers? This is what will happen if goverment is in control. Do you think Ford will be able to compete against GM and Chrysler? Goverment will make sure the rules are such that their guys win.

    43. Pingback: All I Want for Christmas is the Constitution | www.statehousecall.org

    44. Bob, Orange City, Fl says:

      Just an aside to all the "specials" showing up in the Health bill.

      Why not simply mandate that ev eryone has the same health care as provided to our legislators. That would need little explaining and certainly no features.

      Or would everyone have to pay the special tax on this type of coverage……RRS 12/23/09

    45. Pingback: Obamacare: Higher Premiums, Less Care, More Government Control of Your Life « Stupid Socialist

    46. Pingback: Unconstitutional Sleazy Deals May Doom Obamacare (if we’re lucky) « Stupid Socialist

    47. Erich Meyer, Arizona says:

      2010! If we do not pull togeather and figure this out and flush congress of the trash we are surely doomed. We need to tie Obama's hands for the rest of his term and have the damaged repealed. Lets stick togeather.


    48. Pingback: Anti-Socialist Call To Renew your efforts! « VotingFemale Speaks!

    49. jim delaney - roches says:

      I agree with Harrington above.

      If every individual simply refuses to pay the $750 mandated by this oppressive healthcare bill,thereby calling the Democrats' bluff, the bill cannot be executed and it will quickly unravel. So, until the 2010 elections, there IS something concrete which courageous patriotic Americans can do: widespread civil disobedience! Don't let these tyrants get away with it. Stand up for your America. And if neither civil disobedience nor the 2010 elections rescue us from this Marxist oppression, then, of course, there's the Jeffersonian third option: rebellion. Short of accepting slavery, the Jeffersonian option is truly our last line of defense. It's constitutional and would earn the blessings of our Framers. It's that simple.

    50. Mike, Wichita says:

      Until Conservatives put a complete end to Obamacare and Cap and Trade, I will hire no employees. Customer Service may suffer, lead times will likely suffer, and prices may increase because of this, but my quality will not suffer, nor will my reputation, nor the salaries I pay. This is my civil dis-obedience, and there may be more. I will work no harder, I will live at this level and do without.

    51. Pingback: Are Your Senators Fighting For You? Mine Aren’t

    52. Stephen, Logan Utah says:

      So are we to be led to believe that the federal taxes are somehow different just because a majority of that money is ported off overseas to pay for wars?

    53. Whicket Williams Kin says:

      Guerrilla Politics Taking back America one politician at a time Subscription 25 Dollars

    54. Richard Morales, Ed. says:

      Are those of you who are declaring unconstitutional the current health reform bill being considered by Congress the same nay-sayers who believe the Selective Service Act, and its descendant legislation is also unconstitutional? Don't distract the issue by saying we have an all-voluntary military – the draft law is still on the books.

      Am I to assume Heritage argues that the draft IS constitutional, but being forced to buy health insurance is NOT? If so, it would be another example of Heritage schizophrenia and double-talk. If not, read your history to see how the courts including Supreme Court ruled on the Selective Service Act and all subsequent compulsory military service legislation.

      Good luck getting the Supreme Court to even hear such an argument, even though it is packed with conservatives.

    55. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      Shakespear had it correct in his line about 'Lawyers.' It seems that both Houses and the President have no regard for our Constitution and its Amendments. We were fortunate that Senator Reid included verbage to protect "Gun Rights and the second Amendment."

      We, Americans all, must vote out of office all member of the House of Representative this coming November, and the one third of the Senators whos time is up. We need term limits to keep Americans who go into office from being drawn into the perverseness of Washington DC, and the corruption awaiting there. It task the impossible of the elected to serve longer than a few terms, to be away from those that he knew, loved, and the land that he cherished.

      We also need not have people representing America whos so called 'Higher Education' has taught them to argue both sides of a situation with equal effectiveness, and without personal involvement, meaning Lawyers, Attorneys, and those with Degrees in Law! We need people of the same manner and bearing as our Founding Fathers, businessmen, farmers, salesmen, warehousemen, surveyors, the Common Man who speaks in the Common Language that we all can understand, and will create Simple Documents, of few pages, and not hide within those pages secret fundings for special interest such as ACORN and the ACLU, and for people to study the mating habits of ants.

      We need men and women in office who call a spade a spade and not a long handled shovel!

    56. Catherine West says:

      Wednesday, December 23, 2009

      Force of Medicare/caid recipients into the "patient protection & affordable act" debaucle continued:

      EVERY INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN WHO RECEIVES MEDICARE OR MEDICAL/CAID SHALL – WITHOUT 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS- BECOME A PART OF THE "PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE ACT! No right to Security of Person, Property, Affects. No due process. No appeal. 4th Amendment seizure of individual health status because Medicare's shrinking revenue is mandatory for the Act to function. Every American in and out of Elected Office at any level of government easily realizes the Demand – Force – Define – Regulate especially via amount of reimbursement – who gets what service for how long and is it the least expensive method to deliver regardless of age, sex, pre-existing condition–Must be part of this confiscating Act! The Act could otherwise be named 'Shark' for the unbiased eating machine of taxpayer dollars that can only increase in amount because of 80cents on the dollar, when the dollar cost for 24/7 care is 100cents 24/7.

      Executive Branch of government take over the Act's defined medical as 6% of GNP does not count the multitude of other takeovers within energy, money flow of business, environment, manufacture of automobiles via invasion of private property, education of Our young, allowing illegals as a class of extra-citizen who will vote a single party. Recognizing that the need to fight radical islam in Afghanistan is morally and ethically important, while allowing, the same war's captured radical islamic fighters a location on American soil (more taxpayer $$$$$ to spend) is not!?!?

      Don't ever try reason, truth, fact or logic with these lemmings flowing over the cliffs while their leaders stand at the sides saying 'there they go…the ignorant elected Democratic House & Senators'! Tripping over each other as they salute their leaders, while falling off the cliff taking their constituent taxpayers with them!.

      The part of the Constitution is Article I:8 "… but all Duties, Posts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…". This gets attached because the second Power of Section 8 addresses commerce which in approximately 1961 is the part of the Constitutional placed before the Supreme Court which allows the Federal Government to tax because commerce = insurance selling in each state Company (individual in business law) to individual). That in 1828, American Dictionary would not have even conceived of a piece of paper as a contract would be the basis of allowing the Fed. to become part of medical care through Medicare!

      To some Commentors: For the record, both the Constitution and the Declaration are Meant To Be Read by as young as kindergarten; 8 yrs. and older is the design by our Founders.They felt if these two documents were not taught throughout childhood & adulthood, the thread of Patriotism would be lost. They were correct, weren't they! They considered that each individual, for the first time in mankind's history on this planet, was fully capable of reading and applying the principles of both the Declaration (The premise) and the Constitution (the Corollaries). "It is the excellency of this Constitution that is is expressed with brevity, and in the plain common language of Mankind (a.k.a Human Nature)" Oliver Ellsworth, Constitutional Convention Delegate, 1787".

      It is a mistake to delve into the Constitution by sentence structure alone. That is why the later Amendments do not carry or apply as well as the Human Nature Articles and Amendments the Founders originally wrote. On Constitutional Interpretation, "It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. (The Constitution) was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers, and those whitout which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. Thomas Jefferson, Opinion of the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Feb. 15,1791".

      Posted by Cathy in San Marcos at 11:52 PM

      PS References: http://www.teachconstitution.org
      http://www.constitution.org – The Constitution Society

      Heritage Foundation's "The Founder's Almanac"

      Edited by Matthew Spalding.

    57. Whicket Williams Kin says:

      If we will speak by replacing career politicians with our own Representatives at the 2010 elections, we can get this repealed.

      guerrilla politics, taking back america one politician at a time

    58. Whicket Williams Kin says:

      We must make the lawmakers use the same insurance they want us to use Guerrilla Politics, taking back america one politician at a time. ALL professional politicians must be eliminated We need to select our own candidates, rejecting those put forward by parties

    59. Robert Camerlinck says:

      I had hoped that a few more of the mealymouthed Repub. would have gotten up and Raised a lot more he–. But I guess they are still don't get it (IF YOUR NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM)See you at the polls

    60. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Richard Morales, Ed. D., California,

      Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says, "To raise and support armies… and To provide and maintain a Navy."

      It does not say HOW to do that. I'm bewildered in your attempt to bring up the Selective Service Act (everyone knows we have an all-volunteer force) as a counter argument to the Constitutionality of the tripe that was just passed by the Senate.

      But since you brought it up, will it take an ememy invading this country to get you to "volunteer" even in a clerical capacity OR

      will you be the worst type of social freeloader and let other people fight and die to repell an invasion and thus protect you?

      It seems you have a problem with being drafted, even if it depended on the survival of this country?

      No worries. This is why we have an "all-volunteer" force, so those men and women can sacrifice and protect you and this way of life.

      So, again, quite a bad analogy, wouldn't you say?

    61. Jeff Stanger, Housto says:

      Face it. U.S. citizens have not been minding their own store and the economy has been intentionally hijacked for the past year. Instead of working on "sweeping new legislation" to unleash us from commerce killing taxation on businesses and individuals in conjunction with reforming debilitating trade policies, our elected representatives have been working to expand a bureaucracy ridden, commerce killing convoluted Healthcare Reform plan to add to our pain. Tax reform would perpetuate job growth and business opportunities helping reverse the generational bondage our ineffective welfare system has entrenched many families in. Imagine a program that would educate, renew their spirit and natural self reliant nature breaking the addiction to a mere weekly pittance. With economic recovery paramount, we should address healthcare but implement a Keep It Simple approach towards reducing the costs and not create an albotross as planned.

      Terrible trade policies that exported industries, not goods, a misguided Community Reinvestment Act complimented by liberal banking and mortgage guidelines, bogus loan portfolios then peddled to Wall Street a weak waste ridden education system, an invisible border, government corruption, special interest lobbyists and unions have slowly crippled us. What has our Federal bureaucracy done well? Very close to nothing, other than protect us for the most part. Does anyone need more verifiable results to conclude that the U.S. Federal government should NEVER even have considered themselves qualified to reform healthcare? Think about it, in a private business endeavor would you really hire slick salesmen, poverty peddlers, socialists/marxists, failed banking and trade overseers and lifetime politicians with law degrees to formulate a business plan to reduce healthcare costs? NO!

      We can quote the laws as they were intended and as many statesmen as we like but reality is that many well intentioned "public servants" wear a disguise and are capitalizing on those lacking abundance "in need". They have brazenly garnered liberties beyond their constitutional authority for so long, they have forgotten their boundaries granted for and by the people. To right the course, we must hire public servants of diverse backgrounds that echo the heart, will and conscience of average Americans, not special interests. Implement term limits and require all negotiations and treaties to be publicly debated and voted on before 11pm EST. Until we do we will be stuck with self serving, bribe peddling, deal cutting, trough feeding swines.

      For centuries, peoples have clamored for the opportunity to experience the American Dream, not a socialist/communist version of it. Ask those that have built businesses here that came from iron curtain or pure socialist countries. As they are watching this travesty, they are sickened and concerned for what is transpiring. Impeachment could not come soon enough, nor can the 2010 or 2012 elections. I pray that our citizens both Republican, Democrat or otherwise remember what made us great and are now compelled to take action to garner true change we can believe in for our kids sake.

    62. jim delaney - roches says:

      How does invoking the unconstitutionality of the Selective Service Act somehow forgive the blatant unconstitutionality of this healthcare monstrosity? And, as another writer pointed out, since no one is being drafted these days to fight our wars–volunteers are doing that and doing that very well–the Selective Service and the draft that Act could implement has no bearing at all in this discussion. My God. Liberals really are insufferably reality-challenged. Their immaturity turns my stomach, now more than ever before. And, unlike before, I'm not going to let them get away with it merely to find "common ground" or to merely "get along". Nope! It's on my terms now. Too much is at stake to be pussyfooting with these boobs.

    63. Bill Bigelow Port Ch says:

      This bill will be challenged legally and will end up in the Supreme Court. As always, Justice Kennedy, who sided with taking private property from owners for the benefit of private commercial uses, will be the deciding vote. If his vote backs the constitutionality of ObamaCare, this country will be in the full grasp of tyranny and fascism.

    64. Hazen, Utah says:

      Would it be possible for someone with a legal backgound to investigate Harry Reid or any others involved in closed door negotiations with Ben Nelson of Nebraska, by using Article II section 4 of the Constitution and seeking discovery of what bribery when on in the meetings. If bribery did occure, wouldn't that be grounds for impeachment?

    65. Olivia Ciambruschini says:

      If the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the Constitution, and the problem revolves around the Congress and its making a law, why would it be necessary to go through the lower courts? The question is not the actual law that is being made, BUT how it was written and what other laws were disregarded in its creation. Can't the Supreme Court hear the arguments and make a decision? In the end, this is where it will wind up anyway and a lot of time and money will be saved. If there is a dispute involving the Legislative or Executive branches, this should be handled the same way. Any inquiries that fall into this type of category should be presented to the Chief Justice for his consideration. If he feels it is worthy, then the court will hear it without the lower courts. Makes sense to me!

    66. Pingback: The Economics of Mere Conservatism: Part I « A Voice in the Wilderness

    67. Pingback: The Slaughter Rule: Yet Another Reason Obamacare Would Be Unconstitutional | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    68. Pingback: The Slaughter Rule: Yet Another Reason Obamacare Would Be Unconstitutional | Fix Health Care Policy

    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.