«
»

Is This Constitutional?

July 17, 2009, 11:32 am

From the House health care bill:

"There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or any other section."

Tags: ,
Category: Health Care

7 Comments

  1. Eric:

    Is any part of this bill constitutional? Maybe such questions are antiquated, but I really do want to know: Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to require that individuals own health insurance? And further, where does it say that the federal government has the power to get into the health insurance business?

    Granted, one could ask similar questions in regards to buying car companies and bailing out banks . . .

    July 17, 2009, 1:10 pm

  2. Methinks:

    hmmm....I don't have an answer to that question because it's not my expertise, but the probability that I will be immigrating out of this country after immigrating here in the '70's rises each day.

    France's top marginal tax rate will be lower than ours after the Obamessiah is done with just this piece of legislation and they have much better food, better looking people and their healthcare works better than ours will.

    July 17, 2009, 1:43 pm

  3. Dr. T:

    No, but why would that matter? The Obama administration and our current Congress have generated numerous unconstitutional laws, plans, and actions. Few citizens seem to care. The only federal court challenge (by Indiana in regards to its Chrysler investments) was quickly slapped down. Unless we can add two Clarence Thomas clones to the Supreme Court, I see no end to unconstitutionalism.

    July 17, 2009, 3:53 pm

  4. wolfman:

    Of course it is not constitutional. The whole idea of checks an balaces would be worthless is all it took was putting in a section that states it can not be reviewed. Of course, with the amount of deference the courts give lawmakers there may as well be no review.

    July 18, 2009, 5:22 am

  5. tomw:

    What difference does it make? The end result will be that for some period of time, it will be the law of the land. It will take someone somewhere with enough assets to afford to challenge it through the full gauntlet that our legal system sets in place to defend written law. AND, someone will have to prove standing to be able to file suit. Quite the legal maze to traverse to overturn something so blatantly supra-legal.
    tom

    July 18, 2009, 8:41 am

  6. Matt:

    The Necronstitution devours everything. It snuffed the light the moment it was spawned:
    http://www.two--four.net/comments.php?id=P1698_0_1_0

    July 18, 2009, 11:25 pm

  7. ParatrooperJJ:

    COngress can exempt any law from judicial oversight. The Supreme Court only has original juristiction in a few cases.

    July 21, 2009, 4:38 am