The Truth About the Health Care Bills by constitutional lawyer

[sharingwisdom]

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Connelly

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 by the government.


However, as scary as all of that is, 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 United States will effectively have been destroyed.


The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.


The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.


This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a 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, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.. Here is a link to the Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_...

And another to the Bill of Rights:
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_right...


Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas



[Note by Leo Wanta-an American operative and was involved in a CIA plot to destabilize the Soviet economy in 1990.:
Let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a HealthCare Plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a President that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his personal taxes, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a Sovereign Nation that's broke. What the hell could possibly go wrong ???? ]

[theindependenteye]

>>>Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Connelly
>>>Well, I have done it! I...

In my personal & inexpert opinion, unretired theatre-maker that I am, this is absurd beyond all possibility of response. Bottom line is, *nothing* within the possibility of humankind to conceive would satisfy this person if it came from the federal government, and so we're left with the system that American free enterprise has devised, otherwise known as "the greatest health care system on Earth," otherwise known as a friggin' shambles.

But I'm gratified to know that this Constitutional Attorney is a retired one.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[sharingwisdom]

I may not agree with all of Mr. Connelly's politics but I do believe in the sanctity of my constitutional rights, and that my rights are being infringed upon by this piece of poor legislation. I have no recourse but to be taxed, which is typical of how the government continues its harrassment of individual freedom.

If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repitition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. — Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. — Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.

Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. — State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

>>>Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Connelly
>>>Well, I have done it! I...

In my personal & inexpert opinion, unretired theatre-maker that I am, this is absurd beyond all possibility of response. Bottom line is, *nothing* within the possibility of humankind to conceive would satisfy this person if it came from the federal government, and so we're left with the system that American free enterprise has devised, otherwise known as "the greatest health care system on Earth," otherwise known as a friggin' shambles.

But I'm gratified to know that this Constitutional Attorney is a retired one.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[podfish]

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Connelly

Well, I have done it!

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.. Here is a link to the Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_...

And another to the Bill of Rights:
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_right...


Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas

first, I'll preface with the comment that I haven't done a lick of research on this guy, so for all I know he actually -is- for real and has some credible credentials. I'd actually appreciate it if some of his supporters here dig some of that up for me!
But I notice a strong lack of facts in his (mild) rant. Outside of his signature, a reference to the constitution (???) and bill of rights, there's not a lick of connection to any verifiable problem in the new legislation - no quote from it, or even direct reference to any specific part of the bill. And again my favorite sign of non-fact-based diatribe, a reference to "TRUTH" in the title. There was a summary of the bill on one of the highly-suspect MSM sites I looked at today, maybe the Christian Science Monitor's or CNN, that did a little better job of tying their comments to specific sections. Sorry I can't specify the link as counterpoint. But I'm sure everyone's ideas are pretty well locked down by now, so I don't see much need to support or attack them. Pieces like this one, however, are just a bunch of non-credible fuss and fury masquerading as authoritative analysis. Why bother? he's not even a local wacco. I'd just as soon leave the shallow analysis to those of us who are