No Democrat read the 2700 page Obamacare

Council for Constitutional Principles

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER HAS READ THE ENTIRE BILL

Wait until you read this...
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill.
Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish.
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Retired Constitutional Attorney
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.

Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor Carrollton , Texas

  • Print

Comments » 6

conchsoup writes:

Connelly is a right wing tea party ideologue pretending to provide an independent analysis.
He spools out a list of evils supposedly caused by the bill, providing support for none of them. He claims that the bill provides for:

"…rationing of health care," especially for seniors. That’s false: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/rncs...
"…free health care for illegal immigrants." Actually, it prohibits illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies for their care. They could still get care at any hospital emergency rooms that would treat them, which is true currently, too.
"…free abortion services." It’s true that private insurance purchased with the help of federal subsidies could cover abortions, as could a proposed "public option" plan run by the government. But neither would be free. The bill also says abortions would have to be paid for with money from policyholders’ premium payments, and not taxpayer money.
"…probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession." That’s wrong. H.R. 3200, the bill Connelly is writing about, continues "conscience" provisions in current law that allow health care workers to decline to provide abortions.

As for Connelly’s assertions that the bill will "eventually force private insurance companies out of business" and "put everyone in a governrment-run system," they are Connelly’s speculation, and there is nothing in the bill to that effect. Likewise the claim that "ultimately" all personal health care decisions will be made by "federal bureaucrats." Connelly also says that "hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled." That too is conjecture. To some degree, that’s what happens today under Medicare, though Connelly doesn’t mention it. The bill wouldn’t take it beyond that program.

7654321 writes:

I love how idiots like you pretend to give an intellectual review of anything President Obama or democrats aprove of. At least admit your political bias. At least admit that you don't know if the healthcare reform will improve costs to most people or not. All you care about is profits to health care systems and over paid insurance companys.

macchia writes:

in response to conchsoup:

Connelly is a right wing tea party ideologue pretending to provide an independent analysis.
He spools out a list of evils supposedly caused by the bill, providing support for none of them. He claims that the bill provides for:

"…rationing of health care," especially for seniors. That’s false: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/rncs...
"…free health care for illegal immigrants." Actually, it prohibits illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies for their care. They could still get care at any hospital emergency rooms that would treat them, which is true currently, too.
"…free abortion services." It’s true that private insurance purchased with the help of federal subsidies could cover abortions, as could a proposed "public option" plan run by the government. But neither would be free. The bill also says abortions would have to be paid for with money from policyholders’ premium payments, and not taxpayer money.
"…probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession." That’s wrong. H.R. 3200, the bill Connelly is writing about, continues "conscience" provisions in current law that allow health care workers to decline to provide abortions.

As for Connelly’s assertions that the bill will "eventually force private insurance companies out of business" and "put everyone in a governrment-run system," they are Connelly’s speculation, and there is nothing in the bill to that effect. Likewise the claim that "ultimately" all personal health care decisions will be made by "federal bureaucrats." Connelly also says that "hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled." That too is conjecture. To some degree, that’s what happens today under Medicare, though Connelly doesn’t mention it. The bill wouldn’t take it beyond that program.

I no longer pay any attention to SNOPes or FactCheck. Their errors and bias becomes obvious after a while. I do not believe that anyone in this group read or understood the 2700 page report.
I tried. and its impossible unless you are a lawyer and even then it is so broad that if it would pass there would be arguments about he interpretation for years. I was amazed at the numerous times that it would refer to another section of the 2700 page bill, no my friend, I don't think anyone at that spin center read and understood the bill.

sally1860 writes:

Macchia, that entire rant from Connelly has been debunked a long time ago. It's just not true, no matter how badly you want it to be so. It's not even a "spin" on the truth, it's lie after lie.

justanfair writes:

Why would anyone believe what anyone from Texas sa ys unless they are named Jim Hightower or Molly Ivins? Notice how GOP apologists always moan about the number of pages in a bill? What would you expect from a bill that might reform our health care/insurance market for a nation of over 300 million people? A couple of pages double-spaced?

LetitiaLykes (Inactive) writes:

in response to macchia:

I no longer pay any attention to SNOPes or FactCheck. Their errors and bias becomes obvious after a while. I do not believe that anyone in this group read or understood the 2700 page report.
I tried. and its impossible unless you are a lawyer and even then it is so broad that if it would pass there would be arguments about he interpretation for years. I was amazed at the numerous times that it would refer to another section of the 2700 page bill, no my friend, I don't think anyone at that spin center read and understood the bill.

You no longer pay attention to these sites because their analysis of the subjects you bring to this forum are shown to be flawed or
untrue.

None of Connelly's comments on the unconstitutionality of the law are accurate. They simply represent his opinion, nothing more. He does not sit on the Supreme Court nor is he a particularly distinguished legal authority.

This forum averages perhaps 10 comments per subject, the majority being overwhelmingly negative. The reason for this is obvious: you present innacurate, partisan-based misinformation supplied by people masquerasing as constitutional experts. Joppa? Macchia? Willoughby? Edmonds?

Give us a break.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features