- exceeds the powers of Congress
- violates individual rights
- interferes with the authority of the states
- violates the separation of powers with a bureaucracy lacking sufficient Congressional direction and judicial review
Nick Coons will be forced to buy government approved health insurance by 2014 or face IRS fines. He wants to continue to make his own health care decisions. He also objects to the legislated violations of his medical privacy to an insurance company, the federal government, and others without his permission.
The three U.S. Representatives object to the lack of Congressional oversight of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will make assure that costs are controlled and will therefore ration care and care quality. This board will also not be subject to judicial review. Unfathomably, the law also says the board cannot be repealed except for a short window of time in 2017. I cannot understand how a present Congress can override the intentions of a future Congress with any act other than a Constitutional amendment, which requires additional approval from the states.
The Arizona legislators claim they have been forced by the federal government to restore prior cuts they made to their state's relatively generous Medicaid benefits because the federal government had threatened to take away $7 billion in federal payments to the Arizona Medicaid program. They say this violates their First Amendment rights to vote in the best interests of Arizona citizens.
The Obama administration is expected to request that the lawsuit be dismissed since the federal law will not be fully implemented until 2014. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson already rejected this argument in the state of Virginia lawsuit against the federal government.
While I am delighted that 21 states have challenged the federal government on its over-reach into an area traditionally regulated by the states, I am much more pleased with this lawsuit which seeks to directly defend our individual rights. As I have argued repeatedly, it is impossible to make the case that we have an individual right to life and to the pursuit of happiness if ObamaCare is brought into execution. We will not even be able to say that we own our own life. We will not be allowed to manage our own health care to maintain our own lives. We will not be free to help those we love to maintain their lives. We will not be free to take medical remedies to ameliorate pain, so we will not be able to pursue our happiness in a most fundamental way. We will not have the freedom to correct medical problems without the consent of the federal government, yet these medical problems may incapacitate us to pursue the interests and values we need to provide us with happiness. In short, ObamaCare is a prescription all by itself for that illegitimate, tyrannical government we defined in our Declaration of Independence. ObamaCare gives us much greater reason than our colonist forefathers had to dissolve our allegiance to that illegitimate government and to seek independence from its tyrannical grasp. The several lawsuits and/or a supermajority in Congress capable of repealing ObamaCare are the last hope of saving our Union and our much beloved Constitution.
Posts
4 comments:
You wrote, "Nick Coons will be forced to buy government approved health insurance by 2014 or face IRS fines. He wants to continue to make his own health care decisions. He also objects to the legislated violations of his medical privacy to an insurance company, the federal government, and others without his permission."
You and Nick are both wrong, assuming you believe as he does. I'd suggest you watch Lawrence O'Donnell, who was a legislative staffer for the Senate Finance committee during the 90s and wrote this kind of arcane language, decipher the bill. Then look up the bill and see if it true. Surprised me. I guess this is what happens when our congressional officials dont bother to read 2,000 page bills: they dont know what they are talking about. It take a while to load.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36154264#36154264
It would be interesting indeed if the legislation does not actually say what everyone thinks it does. Unfortunately, the Constitution says many things very differently also than people think and they impose their wild interpretations on that. So, even if plain English, let alone arcane English, says something differently than people believe it does, it often does not help.
Nonetheless, I will try to look into this.
There are various Supreme Court cases that say the Constitution is plain English and ought to be interpreted as such, e.g., see Home Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398; 54 S. Ct. 231; 78 L. Ed. 413 (1934).
Yes, and there are many cases that ignore that plain English as well. It seems we always have to keep our fingers crossed when we should have no need for such nonsense.
Post a Comment