OBamaCare: Un-Constitutional

Attorneys in Seven States Preparing Legal Challenges

The “Nebraska Compromise” as it’s come to be known, negotiated by Ben Nelson (D. NE) is under fire from seven Attorney Generals in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state which are probing the Constitutionality of the payoff given to Ben Nelson in exchange for his vote in favor of ObamaCare.

The “Nebraska Compromise” permanently exempts Nebraska from paying the same Medicaid taxes that all other 49 states must pay.

There are at least six (6) Constitutional challenges that lay in wait for ObamaCare to pass, which ultimately will end up in the United States Supreme Court for final resolution.  Today we outline what those challenges are and why you should take heart that should ObamaCare pass (and I predict it will….) the United States still has a Conservative Supreme Court which will overturn ObamaCare before it ever gets implemented.

First is the case of the United States v. Butler (1936) in which Justice Owen Roberts stated in the majority opinion that Congress’ reach is that of matters of National interest, not of local welfare.  “Local Welfare” clearly means the individual states.  United States v. Butler prohibits Congress from treating one state differently than any other state for an impremissible regulatory purpose (of which ObamaCare qualifies.)  The “Nebraska Compromise” also violates the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution by providing special protections for Nebraskans that are not provided for all other citizens of the U.S.

Second, in the United States v. Reynolds, the US Supreme Court ruled that coercing a citizen of the United States to enter into a contract violates the “wheel of servitude which was expressly prohibited in the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibited slavery.  This means the Federal Government cannot force the citizenry of this country into Government Run Healthcare by illegally seizing their money to do it.  The USSC defined “servitude” as “the state of being a slave or completely subject to someone more powerful” which again, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited.

Third, the Takings Clause.  Part of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits private property from being taken without just compensation.  While the courts have said there is “no set formula” to determine when a regulation becomes a taking, several factors the court considers are the economic impact of the regulation, the degree to which the regulation interferes with investor backed expectations, and the character of the government action.  Yesterday, Senator John Ensign (R. NV) called for an examination of the Constitutionality of whether the Federal Government can require/force American’s to purchase a product under the Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause.  (This in response to provisions in the Reid bill that will force all individuals to purchase health insurance.)

Fourth, the Reid legislation (or any other “Health Care Reform” bill which forces individuals to buy insurance) is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendement to the Constitution which explicitly declares “All rights not delegated to the Federal Government are expressly reserved for the states or the people.”  As the individual states did not give the Federal Government their consent to cede their power over their health care systems, the Federal Government via Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama are violating every American’s Tenth Amendment rights. (Impeachable offense, anyone?)

Fifth, Section 3403 on p. 100 of the Reid bill states “...it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise.”  As Illinois’ own Senator Dick Durbin said on Fox News Sunday Morning, no Congress can bind another Congress to action, it’s un-Constitutional.

Sixth, again in Section 3403 the goal of the legislation is to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" - the regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. These are the “Death Panels” that Sarah Palin referred to.  As we all know, the Reid bill strips $500,000,000 (that’s five hundred billion) from Medicare, so let’s all hope and pray that Grandma and Grandpa don’t get sick. 

So take heart my friends. While ObamaCare will pass the House and Senate and Obama may sign it, the chances of it surviving the six legal challenges I’ve outlined above are somewhere between slim  and none (and Slim just left the building.) 

The Democrats are committing political suicide here.  Just give them a little more rope and a little more time.