Is Obama-Care Unconstitutional? by Steve Hansen
Many people have started asking recently what part of the Constitution gives Congress the right to mandate that people buy health coverage. And an argument can be made that they’re not really forcing people to buy coverage. They’re saying that you have to buy coverage or pay an extra tax. So is that Constitutional?
Obviously, there are thousands of ways that Congress currently uses taxes as a carrot-and-stick to encourage behaviors they like and discourage behaviors they don’t like. And (unfortunately), that has never been ruled as Unconstitutional (so far).
So does that mean that it’s NOT Unconstitutional? Maybe. At least as it applies to income taxes.
But what about The Establishment Clause?
You’ve probably heard of “The Establishment Clause”… But just in case you haven’t, it’s a portion of The First Amendment to the Constitution that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Many religious groups have specific beliefs about what is acceptable and isn’t acceptable regarding medical treatment. And no, I’m going to argue that Christians could be forced to pay for abortions that their religions are against. But what about religions like the Amish and Old Order Mennonites that don’t allow for participation in health insurance plans (for similar reasons to why they don’t take out loans or lend money) or Jehovah’s Witnesses that specifically don’t allow for many types of medical treatment?
Is requiring these groups to purchase health insurance and participate in government-run health care a law “prohibiting the free exercise” of their religion? Or worse, is it discriminating against them on the basis of religion? (Can you imagine a tax that was specifically written to target the Amish? Is this any different?)
I’d love to hear your opinions…
While the Carrot & Stick approach has been used to motivate certain actions, I don’t believe that there has ever been a mandate of this nature to purchase ANYTHING. That is to say that I haven’t found a single example of this type of abuse of power. The fact that this bill DOES include language which violates existing laws, which do not permit the funding of abortion, is not irrelevant. It is intended to supersede that legislation and force those laws to be overturned without a specific vote to that effect.
Oddly enough, the question about the Amish and the Menonites is settled already. Included in the bill is an “opt out” for those communities, which conforms to existing exemptions to these communities for other types of utility & service issues. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are SOL.
The worst part of these bills is the fact that they tax & spend, but DO NOT PROVIDE HEALTH CARE OR HEALTH INSURANCE! The mandate is, in ADDITION to the taxes that will be charged to fund the outlined programs, MOST individuals will still be required to privately purchase insurance. Those who do not take on the additional cost of purchasing insurance will face a fine in the form of a tax penalty (Isn’t the use of taxation a violation of the constitutution?) or possible jail time. They’re using these same threats for those who don’t wish to answer the Census because it gathers more data than is permitted in the Constitution.
I believe that the Constitutional argument is going to come down to the 10th Amendment, and the violation of States Rights, rather than the violation of Individual Rights. But when it comes down to it, I think the answer will be that the bills are unconstitutional. I just hope someone has the cajones to argue the case.
I was hoping somebody would bring up the Amish and Mennonite “opt out”… So, that brings up a different question… By allowing them to opt-out and not allowing anybody else to opt out, I would think that there’s two arguments here…
As far as the true test of constitutionality, of course that will never be decided until somebody does stand up and take it to trial… But I’m sure there are multiple organizations out there already gearing up to line up a test case as soon as this thing goes into effect (if it does)…
Absolutely true. I just hope that they go the Judicial Route, and not the “Constitutional Convention” route, which has been argued in many forums. A Constitutional Convention would be the WORST CASE SCENARIO, as it would overrule our current Constitution and make us start of scratch. And, remember, even if it does pass, it CAN be repealed. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a fight, but it could happen. After all, Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, and even IT was repealed!