Someone did read the entire House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009
From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor,
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law... I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.
What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Dear Guy:
Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, I did write this article. You can find the original on my website and blog as well as more recent articles I have written on the same subject matter. The link is below. You can also go to the "About" page of the website to view my credentials.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael Connelly Personal website and Blog http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/
Author of "The Mortarmen" a book about my father's unit in WWII;
"Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch" ;
and my just released novel "Amayehli: A Story of America".
I also teach law courses via the Internet through colleges and universities worldwide. To find a college or university near you, go to Education To Go's website at www.ed2go.com.
From: guyrex@comcast.net
To: mrobertc@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Someone read the Health bill for Constitutionality
Date:
Mr. Connelly,
Before I circulate this, would you please confirm this as your handiwork?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Best regards,
Guy
Guy R. Holland, CFP
Tax & Financial Planning, since 1975
Telephone: 248-470-4916
Vote Congress Out in 2010... http://ThrowThemOut.com
Join the R3VOLution http://CampaignForLiberty.com
"What have you done for me lately?" It's a question that voters implicitly ask politicians, especially ones they have supported and who are seeking their votes again. And it's a question that young voters in particular may be asking Barack Obama, whom they supported by a 66 percent to 32 percent margin 13 months ago.
It's a question that is obviously on the minds of some thoughtful Democrats. They've noticed that unemployment among the young is well above the national average -- it reached 27.6 percent among those ages 16 to 19 in October.
They've noticed that an increasing number of young people -- about half of those between ages 18 and 24 -- are still living in their parents' homes. They've noticed that entry-level work is scarce, as older workers cling to their jobs.
So they're urging the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to do something to help young people. But they seem to be having a hard time coming up with solutions that match the scope of the problem....
Many conservative politicians, radio hosts, and pundits have repeatedly stated their shared belief that the Republican Party "lost its way" prior to the 2008 election. In their minds, the entire conservative movement believed in limited government and low spending and was simply corrupted by absolute power. They may be surprised to learn that this is not the case at all. The fact that party leadership turned its back on limited government and low spending was entirely predictable. In fact, it should have been expected....continue article here
On December 3, 2009, the United States Mint will release the 2009 Proof American Platinum Eagle. The reverse design of the one ounce .9995 platinum coin will feature the first of six different designs to commemorate the core concepts of American Democracy.
The current program will run from 2009 to 2014 and represent the core concepts of American democracy through representations of the six principles of the Preamble of the United States Constitution. This will include: To Form a More Perfect Union (2009), To Establish Justice (2010), To Insure Domestic Tranquility (2011), To Provide for the Common Defense (2012), To Promote General Welfare (2013), and To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity (2014). Themes for each of the reverse designs are inspired by narratives prepared by Chief Justice of the United States, John G. Roberts, Jr., at the request of the US Mint.
The Chief Justice's first narrative is presented below. This narrative inspired the reverse design of the 2009 Proof Platinum Eagle, which features four faces representing the diversity of the Nation, with hair and clothing intertwined to symbolize the principle "To Form a More Perfect Union."
"To Form A More Perfect Union" by John G. Roberts, Jr.
When the thirteen American colonies issued their Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776, they recognized that the success of the American Revolution depended on unity in opposition to British rule. As the Revolutionary War progressed, those thirteen fledgling entities agreed, through "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," to establish the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation proved inadequate, however, in creating an effective national government. After the Revolutionary War, the states convened a constitutional convention in Philadelphia to reconsider the terms of their confederation. During that fateful summer of 1787, America's leading statesmen drafted the Constitution of the United States of America with the avowed objective "to form a more perfect Union."
John Jay, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States, joined James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in authoring a series of essays, now known as The Federalist Papers, to urge the citizens to support ratification of the Constitution. In The Federalist No.2, Jay explained that the Constitution's promise of "a more perfect Union" rested upon a unity of distinctly American ideals, interests, and experiences that joined the people of the United States together as one nation.
Jay noted that "independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories," but rather was "one connected, fertile, widespreading country" with "a variety of soils," "innumerable streams," and a "succession of navigable waters" that "forms a kind of chain round its borders as if to bind it together." Jay also recognized that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people" who, "by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence." He discerned a connection between the land and the people:
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
John Jay believed that this "band of brethren" found unity in the English ancestry, heritage, and customs that many of the citizens of his era shared. But history has shown that the Constitution's aspiration of "a more perfect Union" rests more fundamentally on a unity of common beliefs that Americans of all backgrounds throughout history have embraced. As the United States has expanded across the continent, overcome internal conflict, and welcomed new states, the nation has found enduring strength in its people's diverse origins and perspectives. The United States remains perpetually united by a shared dedication to the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality. Through those shared ideals, each new generation has sustained the Constitution's promise of "a more perfect Union."
"A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism." - Karl Marx /Amessage from 1944 Socialist Party President at this link | ||||||||||||
Posts
All Comments
