Why do people say that Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Updated on : December 3, 2021 by Peter Webb



Why do people say that Obamacare is unconstitutional?

There are several reasons based on the original public meaning of the United States Constitution.

  1. The federal government only has the powers expressly delegated to it by the United States Constitution and no other. These powers are known as the "Enumerated Powers". This is implicit in Article I, Section 1 and expressly set forth in the Tenth Amendment. There is nothing in the United States Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate the individual purchase of health care. That power is expressly reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
  2. The argument that the compulsory purchase of healthcare or co
Keep reading

There are several reasons based on the original public meaning of the United States Constitution.

  1. The federal government only has the powers expressly delegated to it by the United States Constitution and no other. These powers are known as the "Enumerated Powers". This is implicit in Article I, Section 1 and expressly set forth in the Tenth Amendment. There is nothing in the United States Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate the individual purchase of health care. That power is expressly reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
  2. The claim that the compulsory purchase of health care or the consequent penalty is a "tax" is absurd. It is a blatant contradiction of the plain language of the United States Constitution. If it is a tax, then it is a direct tax. However, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibits direct taxes except in proportion to the population. The 16th Amendment authorizes direct taxes only in proportion to income. Authorized sanctions do not qualify under the 16th Amendment.
  3. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements violate privacy rights that are supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment.
  4. The forced purchase of health care and the federal government's limitation of available health care and insurance options are violations of the Ninth Amendment. People's ability to decide what goods or services to buy or not to buy is one of the unlisted rights that are supposed to be protected by the Ninth Amendment.
  5. State mandates are a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. The federal government has no authority to compel states to do anything except in those areas of responsibility for which there is clear constitutional authority.
  6. There was no severability clause in the original Obamacare law. Therefore, if any part is unconstitutional, then the entire law is unconstitutional. The whole law stands or falls.

Therefore, if he were in the Supreme Court of the United States, he would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court declared the Affordable Care Act constitutional. Specifically, it kept the individual mandate, a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The Court said the sanction was constitutional because it was a tax, and Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to collect taxes.

Later, Congress amended the ACA and set the penalty for not having health insurance at $ 0.

The challenge for the ACA now is that a $ 0 tax is not a tax. Then the argument continues that if the individual mandate is not a tax, it is unconstitutional. (Then some magic happens.) If you

Keep reading

The United States Supreme Court declared the Affordable Care Act constitutional. Specifically, it kept the individual mandate, a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The Court said the sanction was constitutional because it was a tax, and Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to collect taxes.

Later, Congress amended the ACA and set the penalty for not having health insurance at $ 0.

The challenge for the ACA now is that a $ 0 tax is not a tax. Then the argument continues that if the individual mandate is not a tax, it is unconstitutional. (Then some magic happens). If the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire act must be constitutional since they are inseparable for some reason. (I'm trying to write that in such a way that it makes sense, but I'm really having a hard time doing it.)

I tried to find out a bit about this judge, Reed O'Connor, if he was mainstream or not. He certainly has a habit of finding things unconstitutional.

O'Connor also recently declared parts of the Indigenous Child Welfare Act unconstitutional in the case of Brackeen v. Zinke, a decision that has been stayed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 1

O'Connor was in the news in 2016 when he ordered a nationwide injunction against the Obama administration's transgender bathroom policy for schools under the Title IX nondiscrimination law. The case under which this order was issued was dismissed, and the court order was subsequently dissolved after the US Department of Education withdrew its guidance letters. 2

In 2015, O'Connor ruled that the federal ban on certain interstate gun sales was unconstitutional in Mance v. Holder (later Mance v. Sessions). O'Connor was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3

In 2013, O'Connor ruled that the Obama administration's immigration orders were unconstitutional in Crane v. Neapolitan. 4 That case was ultimately dismissed.

Footnotes

1 Brackeen et al v. Zinke et al 2 Gender identity under Title IX - Wikipedia 3 Mance v. Sessions, No. 15-10311 (5th Cir. 2018) 4 Federal Judge Rules that ICE Agents Have File a lawsuit against the federal government

The simplest answer to WHY PEOPLE SAY OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL is that they are misinformed, idiotic, or Trump supporters.

The question to ask concerns Trump's relentless promise, during the 2015-2016 campaign, that he had a BETTER and CHEAPER health care plan (than Obamacare). Every normal American wants exactly that!

To make it easier for Trump to pass the promised plan, he had a REPUBLICAN majority in BOTH Houses of Congress FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS. Republican voters expected Trump to give Congress his plan and they would pass it easily.

But Trump is a pathological liar. He never

Keep reading

The simplest answer to WHY PEOPLE SAY OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL is that they are misinformed, idiotic, or Trump supporters.

The question to ask concerns Trump's relentless promise, during the 2015-2016 campaign, that he had a BETTER and CHEAPER health care plan (than Obamacare). Every normal American wants exactly that!

To make it easier for Trump to pass the promised plan, he had a REPUBLICAN majority in BOTH Houses of Congress FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS. Republican voters expected Trump to give Congress his plan and they would pass it easily.

But Trump is a pathological liar. He NEVER had a plan. He just lied, day after day, that he did. And, because you fooled so many gullible people back then, you are again promising a BETTER and CHEAPER plan for 2020. Anticipating questions about it (fool me once, it's your fault, fool me twice, it's my fault ), has stated that he will not release details of that plan UNLESS REELECTED. Think about it….

REPUBLICANS have complained, complained, and sued over the ACA (Obamacare) since it was passed. That was about 10 years ago. Surely they could come up with a better and cheaper plan IF YOU WANT. I think REPUBLICANS don't want Americans to have something BETTER and CHEAPER. They want to keep pretending it's horrible and keep pretending it's the Democrats' fault.

The current cost of the ACA is the fault of the Republicans. They had a majority in Congress for two years and they did nothing to make it better and cheaper.

What are the reasons for declaring Obamacare unconstitutional?

Simple, the Fifth Amendment:

No one may… be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor will private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And what is Freedom, if not the Right to choose for oneself? And what is money, if not one's property. So any federal mandate, which deprives a person or company of their choice to spend or not spend their money on health insurance, is a violation of the fifth.

I could delve into a very complex explanation of all the nuances of how Obamacare

Keep reading

What are the reasons for declaring Obamacare unconstitutional?

Simple, the Fifth Amendment:

No one may… be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor will private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And what is Freedom, if not the Right to choose for oneself? And what is money, if not one's property. So any federal mandate, which deprives a person or company of their choice to spend or not spend their money on health insurance, is a violation of the fifth.

I could delve into a very complex explanation of all the nuances of how Obamacare violates the 5th, but what I just said is in a nutshell. So I won't waste my time or yours on that long explanation.

However, I will add that EMATALA Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Law also violates the 5th, by taking private property, that is, emergency rooms of private hospitals and medical services and labor, for public use, without compensation. fair.

Additionally, the Commerce Clause was never intended to allow the federal government to regulate private industry or contracts, and a private contract is any agreement between two people, which includes the purchase of a pack of gum.

This was quite clear in Federalist 42:

To the evidence and observations that previous works have provided on this issue, it can be added that without this complementary provision, the great and essential power to regulate foreign trade would have been incomplete and ineffective. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States that import and export through other States, of the undue contributions that they impose on them. If they were free to regulate trade between State and State, it should be foreseen that ways will be found to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with rights that would fall on the manufacturers of the latter. and the consumers of the first. We can be sure from past experience that such a practice would be introduced by future gadgets; and as much for that as for a common knowledge of human affairs, which would fuel incessant animosities, and it would not be improbable that it would end in serious interruptions of the public tranquility. Federalist No. 42

Its sole objective was to regulate the actions of state governments, both foreign and domestic.

One reason is because it is the heaviest illegal tax on the poor in America. It caused people thousands of dollars when their premiums went up (which Obama knew would happen, and lied about it). It all cost thousands of people their insurance companies and doctors, when a large part of the insurance companies withdrew because it was too expensive. This was also a huge lie ... "You can stay with your doctor." Not so. Furthermore, it did not cover the 47 million people Obama claimed it would cover, leaving millions of people still without insurance. Bottom line? It was illegal, unfair, dirty,

Keep reading

One reason is because it is the heaviest illegal tax on the poor in America. It caused people thousands of dollars when their premiums went up (which Obama knew would happen, and lied about it). It all cost thousands of people their insurance companies and doctors, when a large part of the insurance companies withdrew because it was too expensive. This was also a huge lie ... "You can stay with your doctor." Not so. Furthermore, it did not cover the 47 million people Obama claimed it would cover, leaving millions of people still without insurance. Bottom line? It was illegal, unfair, dirty, and it was a total failure. If it had been a decent thing, Obama and Pelosi would have had to lie to get it done. They knew that if the truth came out, it would never happen.

Well, a black guy is the namesake, so it automatically makes him unconstitutional, immoral, and an abomination in the eyes of many right-handers.

Here's a CBS News article that explains the reasons pretty well:

Federal judge dismisses Obamacare as unconstitutional Federal judge dismisses Obamacare as unconstitutional

The judge drew up a 55-page ruling, numerous reports have been written about the ruling that explain it.

In 1920, a constitutional amendment would have been required for the federal government to make marijuana illegal. Just as the Eighteenth Amendment was required for the federal government to ban alcohol.

This is because the Tenth Amendment states that the federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

  • "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Drugs can become a federal crime only if people have delegated that power to t

Keep reading

In 1920, a constitutional amendment would have been required for the federal government to make marijuana illegal. Just as the Eighteenth Amendment was required for the federal government to ban alcohol.

This is because the Tenth Amendment states that the federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

  • "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Drugs can become a federal crime only if people have delegated that power to the federal government. Otherwise, the federal government does not have the power to interfere in that aspect of life.


So what changed? The Supreme Court has greatly expanded the powers of the federal government through a very "elastic" interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That part of the Constitution is now often referred to as the "Elastic Commerce Clause." 1 2

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and between various states and with Indian tribes." .

Which would not seem to give the federal government the power to engage in an activity that does not involve buying or selling things across state lines. And it wasn't until ...

In 1942, the Supreme Court decided Wickard v. Filburn and greatly expanded the Commerce Clause to cover anything that could affect interstate commerce. The court found that the federal government could prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own land to feed his own pigs, because growing his own wheat meant he did not have to buy wheat from someone else. And because the United States is a large market, your refusal to buy wheat from your neighbor could theoretically affect the price of wheat in some other state.


In 2005, the Supreme Court used similar logic to uphold federal drug laws in Gonzales v. Raich. They reasoned that owning a drug (even a drug grown in one's backyard) could inspire someone, somewhere, to sell drugs across state lines.

Judge Clarence Thomas disagreed with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, writing in disagreement:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, has never crossed state lines, and has not had a demonstrable effect on the domestic marijuana market. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited, enumerated powers.

...

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government can now regulate quilting bees, clothing drives and potlucks in all 50 states. This mocks Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and definite" while those of the states are "numerous and undefined."

Judge Sandra Day O'Connor also disagreed, writing:

We enforce the "outer limits" of the authority of the Commerce Clause of Congress not for its own sake, but to protect the historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thus to maintain the distribution of power. fundamental to our federalist system of government ... The main virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing the possibility that "a single courageous state can, if its citizens so choose, serve as a laboratory and attempt new social experiments and economic without risk for the rest of the country ". "...

Based on the abstract assertions of Congress, the Court has upheld making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's home for one's own medicinal use. This overreach stifles the express choice of some states, concerned about the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; If I were a California legislator, I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's medical marijuana experiment, the principles of federalism that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that the space for the experiment in this case be protected.


Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Clarence Thomas have argued that federal drug laws are a violation of the Constitution. But they were never able to persuade the rest of the court to see things the same way.

Footnotes

1 The Amazing Elastic Trading Clause 2 http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4807&context=fss_papers

Thanks for the A2A.

To begin with, as others have said, whether or not a law helps people and whether it is constitutional are separate issues.

That said, most of the other answers so far are wrong as to why a federal circuit judge in Dallas recently found it unconstitutional.

So, as you may know, the law includes an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the country to have insurance. In addition, a tax penalty was applied to those who refused to obtain insurance.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because it was effectively a tax, either

Keep reading

Thanks for the A2A.

To begin with, as others have said, whether or not a law helps people and whether it is constitutional are separate issues.

That said, most of the other answers so far are wrong as to why a federal circuit judge in Dallas recently found it unconstitutional.

So, as you may know, the law includes an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the country to have insurance. In addition, a tax penalty was applied to those who refused to obtain insurance.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because it was effectively a tax, either paying for insurance or paying a tax penalty, but either way, it was reflected in their taxes.

Then this year, at Trump's request, the Republican Congress removed the tax penalty for the individual term starting in 2019, BUT NOT THE INDIVIDUAL TERM ITSELF. In other words, the law still requires everyone to have insurance, but it doesn't penalize you if you don't comply.

That left the door open for the Texas Attorney General, along with the Attorneys General of several other red states, to file a lawsuit in federal court declaring that the law is no longer constitutional. The idea is that without the attached tax penalty, the individual mandate can no longer be considered a tax, thus effectively exceeding the SCOTUS judgment of 2016. The individual mandate is an integral part of the ACA (Obamacare) and therefore they argue, The entire law is now unconstitutional, arguing that while the federal government may have constitutional power to tax citizens, it does not have the power to tax citizens. inform citizens whether or not they should have insurance.

The federal judge in Dallas ruled with the plaintiffs, but the case is currently being appealed and may end up in SCOTUS. The general sentiment among legal scholars is that eventually, the ruling will be overturned (mainly because those who know better and care know that the chaos that dismantling the ACA would cause would result in BIG economic turmoil). In the meantime, however, it will wreak havoc on the insurance markets and likely drive premiums up.

Reed O'Conner is a prominent conservative activist judge. Putting the ACA in front of him for a decision was a calculated move. Before you panic, remember that this is just the beginning of a process. But it does highlight some inconvenient truths regarding Republican politicians. During the midterm elections, a slew of campaign ads appeared featuring members of the Republican Party who publicly pledged to protect Americans with pre-existing diseases. While making these very public statements, behind the scenes, they quietly worked to undermine those protections. I guess they thought the voters

Keep reading

Reed O'Conner is a prominent conservative activist judge. Putting the ACA in front of him for a decision was a calculated move. Before you panic, remember that this is just the beginning of a process. But it does highlight some inconvenient truths regarding Republican politicians. During the midterm elections, a slew of campaign ads appeared featuring members of the Republican Party who publicly pledged to protect Americans with pre-existing diseases. While making these very public statements, behind the scenes, they quietly worked to undermine those protections. I guess they thought voters wouldn't notice and to be fair many probably didn't,

But now that the midterm elections are behind us, the true nature of the Republican intent has been brought to the table. This does not include all Republicans, some see this as a very bad move. The problem here is that millions of working class voters who initially hated Obamacare are now depending on it. Of course, many will tell you that they like the ACA, but they still hate Obamacare. They haven't made the connection. Whatever it is called, if the Republicans kill the ACA, the impact will be seismic. Millions of Americans who currently have access to health care will suddenly lose it. And then they'll lose it, like by going ballistic and looking for people to blame. It won't be difficult for the Democrats at that point to blame the Republicans.

So why has the ACA become popular with voters who hated it at first? Because the health system that we had previously was so bad. I have a lot of problems with the ACA, I would prefer Medicare for all, but compared to what we had, it is a remarkable improvement. And one of the biggest improvements is how people with pre-existing conditions are treated. In the old days, a pre-existing condition was a death sentence or a path to bankruptcy for millions of citizens. He made the claim that America was a merciful country somewhat dubious.

To be honest, the fact that pre-existing condition coverage is so popular is the reason many Republican politicians want to be associated with its continuation. That survival is crucial for many Americans is not really the primary concern. It's popular, that's what makes it politically important. This puts Republicans in an awkward position. They vowed to kill Obamacare as their top priority. While they voted to remove it over and over again during the Obama presidency, the ACA was implemented and almost immediately improved the lives of millions of Americans, including members of the Republican base.

The whole repeal and replacement thing was a lot of garbage. And I'll tell you why. Obamacare is the replacement. What do i mean? The folks at the Heritage Foundation came up with it as a counterattack on any kind of government-controlled healthcare system. Ol 'Mitt Romney even implemented it in Massachusetts while he was governor. So if they repeal Obamacare, they can't replace it because Obamacare is the replacement, the replacement for government-controlled health care. Uncomfortable, huh?

This decision by Judge O'Conner will not immediately reverse coverage for pre-existing conditions. Again, it is simply the beginning of a process. But Americans need to pay attention here and not listen to what Republican politicians say, but watch what they do. They've made it pretty clear that they're willing to publicly defend pre-existing condition coverage, while quietly working to kill that coverage under the table.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.