published Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

Unconstitutional ObamaCare

In the enumeration of governmental powers in the Constitution of the United States, there is absolutely no provision allowing the federal government to force American citizens to buy anything!

Read the Constitution, section by section, and that will be evident.

So all Americans should understand that it is unconstitutional for Congress and President Barack Obama to use the recently enacted ObamaCare legislation to force the American people to buy government-approved medical insurance.

That's why 26 states jointly filed a legal challenge to ObamaCare. And that's why U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., has ruled against the law.

Vinson ruled correctly that Obama-Care's provisions are simply not permissible under our Constitution.

The Obama administration responded predictably, claiming the District Court ruling is a "case of judicial overreaching." But the fact is, it is not the federal judge but Obama and the congressional Democrats who approved ObamaCare who were guilty of grossly "overreaching" the powers delegated by the Constitution.

There is no constitutional basis, nor is there any valid legal precedent, on which American citizens may be forced by the federal government to "buy something" -- anything -- or be fined for not doing so!

To illustrate his point, the judge used this analogy of what would be improper congressional action:

"Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals. Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier and thus are more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

By using the patent absurdity of government requiring the eating of broccoli, Vinson made the constitutional point very clearly.

He further correctly observed:

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation that began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

Then Vinson, a former Navy pilot, summed up:

"If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,' ... and we would have a Constitution in name only."

While the judge is constitutionally correct, the administration plans to appeal his ruling. Other federal courts have issued mixed rulings on ObamaCare, so the question almost certainly will end up in the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, we cannot predict with assurance that the Supreme Court will rule constitutionally, as Vinson did.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
dfclapp said...

Most of the solutions to healthcare problems date back to the mid 1980s or even further to the Nixon administration. It is extremely easy to criticize and burn, but very difficult to build. Those who advocate burning it down with no realistic means of replacing it quickly (complete with cost-control measures similar to the individual mandate) are being irresponsible.

February 2, 2011 at 6:03 a.m.
Livn4life said...

The administration has no problem whatsoever when they or people of their pursuasion "over reach," Neither does the left leaning media. But we have evolved to this point and many people think it is okay to let the government rule. Being "irresponsible" as dfclapp stated above is an understatement. What the administration is seeking to put in place is not a realistic and helpful replacement of what ails our current medical system.

February 2, 2011 at 6:28 a.m.
fairmon said...

Reduce the legislatively imposed 30% plus embedded cost in U.S. produced goods so people buy U.S. produced products, exports increase and unemployment drops to under 5%. Allow an income tax "reduction" of about one half the nominal cost of a standard policy for individuals and employers. Enable people to purchase health care insurance on a national basis instead of only the state approved to increase competition. Reasonable TORT reform is needed. It really isn't as complicated as congress wants people to believe. It is the special interest, lobbyist and their desire to hold office that complicates it for them.

February 2, 2011 at 6:30 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Can't wait to see the first lawsuit claiming that auto insurance is unconstitutional.

February 2, 2011 at 6:58 a.m.

Mr. Harp is a prophet sent to this forum to lead the misguided horde to the promised land of common sense and logic.

Common sense and logic, are increasingly rare commodities that should be mandated.

Mr. eeeeek, with all due respect, and my apologies for any unecessary e's added to your name, your post is lame. If one can be forced to purchase one commodity, then anything is in play.

I believe you know it, and approve of it.

February 2, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

eeeeek wrote,

"Can't wait to see the first lawsuit claiming that auto insurance is unconstitutional."

OOops. Were you writing about mandated auto insurance?

If you were, then maybe you need to do a little thinking about the difference between a State Government, which can do a great many things, and the Constitutionally created U.S. Federal Government, which was intended from the beginning to be tightly bound to only those powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

A Federal Government which can force one person to purchase an item or service from another person or group of people was clearly never the intent of the framers.

Secondary to that, and a very minor point in relation, is the fact that folks who do not drive cars on public roads are not required to maintain auto insurance, thus your premise is falsified twice.

February 2, 2011 at 9:50 p.m.
carlB said...

Can't wait to see the first lawsuit claiming that auto insurance is unconstitutional. Username: eeeeeek | On: February 2, 2011 at 6:58 a.m.

Opinion » Free Press Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011 Unconstitutional ObamaCare In the enumeration of governmental powers in the Constitution of the United States, there is absolutely no provision allowing the federal government to force American citizens to buy anything!

Reply to eeeeeek:

Today there was a question of whether insurance was a "commodity." When a person buys any kind of insurance policy they do it for their protection and in many cases for the purpose of providing compensation to other people for damage. Nor can any fianance any property without buying insurance. Does this requirement of buying healthcare insurance have to be in the Constituation of the US, since it might not be a commodity? Not only do the States require automobile insurance, the military branches of the government also do if you own a vehicle and want to drive it on the military bases.

If a person works they pay into the FICA, "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

I suppose that since Medicare and the Medicare prescription drug was not required for people to apply for when they reached the requirement age it is okay for the people to use?
For the Federal Judge to "judge" that the entire healthcare package to be unconstitutional is over reaching

February 2, 2011 at 10:12 p.m.
carlB said...

Reply to SCOTTYM | On: February 2, 2011 at 9:50 p.m.

Reagan Solicitor General: 'I Am Quite Sure That The Health Care Mandate Is Constitutional' (VIDEO)

February 2, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

carlB | On: February 2, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.

Is this person supposed to carry some sort of authoritative power?

Do you also believe that the Feds could mandate the purchase of GM automobiles and GE refrigerators?

If no, what's the difference?

If yes, then in your version of the U.S. citizens can obviously be forced to buy anything the Feds decide that we must.

February 2, 2011 at 11:08 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Not only do the States require automobile insurance, the military branches of the government also do if you own a vehicle and want to drive it on the military bases."

Neither of these have anything to do with the Federal Government forcing anyone to do anything.

In the first instance, you are talking about State regulations. Absolutely moot when discussing the limits of Federal powers. Go read the 10th amendment again, I don't think you understood it the first time.

In the second, (a) those military bases are Federal property. ( I can require that you have insurance to drive on my property as well) and (b) you can walk or take a cab or bus and shazaam! no insurance required.

February 2, 2011 at 11:17 p.m.
Walden said...

The comparison to mandated auto insurance is idiotic, and anyone who tries to put that argument forth is, thus, an idiot.

Auto insurance is mandated not due to the damage one might do to their own automobile (or property), but because of the damage one might do to someone else's automobile (or property). The comparison between auto and health insurance is simply a non-sequitur.

February 3, 2011 at 10:10 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Gee, SCOTTYM seems the founders disagree with you.

You seem really keen on the government not helping people with health care.

So what type of health care benefits do you have? Hmmm?

February 3, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

This is such a fun turn of events. I am absolutly loving the news today about states declaring obamacare DOA based on this ruling and refusing to enforce or implement the law.

Happy days for freedom lovers.

I understand Congress is about to slip through another extension of the Patriot Act. It is time that some of the provisions of that act be dropped. Call our Congressmen and let them know that we do not want this act extended without review.

February 3, 2011 at 2:15 p.m.
Sailorman said...


"seems the founders disagree with you."

Not necessarily. If you read the comments following the article, you will find some fairly persuasive discussions to the contrary. Mr Ungar maintains he's correct. He may be. Then again, he may not.

He thought this response to his premise was a good one:

“Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”

The Constitution’s clear purpose is to limit the federal government’s authority. The framers clearly understood power’s gravitational pull.

I imagine sitting in the Congress at the time and thinking: “This is a step in the wrong direction. But, the problem isn’t going away naturally. I suppose this one is OK. What harm will it really do? I need to choose my battles. This isn’t the hill I want to die on.”.

But, they underestimated just how powerful the pull is. Their simple pragmatism is now being used as a wedge to give the federal government carte blanche?!?!? If they can require this, then what can’t they require?"

btw that was an excellent find. Everybody ought to read it.

February 3, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hotdiggity | On: February 3, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.

Nope. False premise yet again.

One was not forced to be a sailor. Ergo, no one was forced to purchase health care insurance.

Why is this so hard for folks to wrap their minds around?

Ideological blindness?

To think that this Rick Ungar fellow is actually paid to spew this type of stupidity says a whole lot about the state of our culture.

We have achieve a true Idiocracy.

February 3, 2011 at 9:46 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.