HEALTH CARE BILL VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS

[Guest guest]

HEALTH CARE BILL VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS

_http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan127.htm_

(http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan127.htm)

By Attorney Jonathan Emord

April 12, 2010

NewsWithViews.com

 

 

The health care bill passed into law on March 21 violates the First and

Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The bill mandates that

almost all Americans acquire health insurance, thus divesting millions of

Americans of money against their will and providing it as an enormous

government mandated windfall to the nation's insurance companies. Thirty-eight

states attorneys general are preparing to file suit against the federal

government to challenge the new law. This is the first time in American history

that the federal government has compelled the citizens of this country to buy

a specific product, health insurance. That mandate violates our basic

right to liberty which includes not only the freedom to purchase goods and

services lawfully available in the market, but also the freedom not to purchase

those goods and services, and the right to associate and not associate

with institutions of our choice.

 

 

The health care bill works a perverse coercion on the American public,

compelling virtually everyone to obtain private health insurance. A family of

four earning $66,370 would have to pay $5,243 for health insurance under

this bill, whether the family wished to be insured or not. Those who refuse

to pay suffer a tax penalty to force them into the ranks of the insured.

 

 

The content of this bill is largely the same as that presented by the

insurance industry to Congress, so there is glee in that sector as they

endeavor not to estimate the billions that will come there way by force of the

federal government. Imagine if your local business was the beneficiary of a

law that compelled every citizen in town to buy your product. You alone would

be delighted at the loss of freedom of choice experienced by your

neighbors. For them, the compulsion would spell tyranny. My hope is that enough

Americans value their freedom to eject from office those who voted for this

terrible bill.

 

 

The health care bill presents a critical constitutional challenge. If the

courts defend the Constitution in this instance, the new law will be held

unconstitutional in most, if not all, of its parts. If the courts do not

defend the Constitution, prepare yourself for more mandates from the federal

government on how you spend your money. Increasingly the after tax dollars

you thought were your own to spend will be governed by judgments made in the

Congress of the United States. Liberty as we know it will not survive this

assault.

 

 

The right to liberty is protected by the Fifth Amendment against action by

the federal government. It ensures that Americans may act or refrain from

acting in the legal market for goods and services. If a good or service is

lawfully available, there is no constitutional power by which the federal

government can compel a citizen to purchase that good or service. The

decision whether to be insured or not involves an individual assessment of risk

taking and preference for association.

 

 

The freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment against

action by the federal government. It ensures that Americans may act or refrain

from acting in choosing to associate with an individual, group, or

business. If, for example, we oppose conventional medicine, believe in reliance

on

self help, or otherwise as adults elect not to take advantage of the

services funded by private insurance, we have the right to avoid that

association under the First Amendment freedom of association.

 

 

The First and Fifth Amendments provide us with freedom of choice. We are

equally protected in our right to make legal choices that others may

perceive as good for us as we are to make legal choices that others may

perceive

as not good for us. Thus, a three hundred pound man can eat large quantities

of fattening foods despite the judgment that he ought to diet. The

alternative is legal and the consequences are personal. Consequently, there is

no

lawful right for the community to take away the liberty our rotund friend

enjoys. He has made a choice to risk physical injury for gustatory pleasure.

 

 

A healthy twenty-three year old may elect to save monies or expend them on

education or career development rather than purchase health insurance. The

use of the resources otherwise expended for health insurance can be

indispensable to the pursuit of that person's education or career. Risk taking

is

characteristic of youth, particularly as they endeavor to find a way in

the world of education and business.

 

 

Regardless of the reason, adults have a well recognized constitutional

liberty right to refuse treatment. That extreme position is understood to be

the right of a person even when treatment would prolong life. A logical

corollary to that right is the right to refuse to pay for insurance to cover

treatments. While an individual has no constitutional right to receive

medical treatment, he or she may refuse it and, likewise, may refuse to pay for

goods and services associated with the receipt of it.

 

 

If a court were to uphold as constitutional federal government mandates

compelling individuals to obtain health insurance, it would open the door to

all manner of mandates paternalistically said by Congress to be good for

us. So, for example, why not mandate that every American buy a certain

minimum quantity per capita of foods defined as wholesome to reduce the

incidence

of disease? Why not mandate that every American buy a certain quantity of

" green " energy products every year or buy an electric car?

 

 

If the first national law compelling the purchase of a product (here

national health insurance) does not fall as a violation of our right to liberty

under the Fifth Amendment, then there will be no end to the kind of

limitations on individual liberty that the government can impose on the

presupposition that it knows better than we do individually what is in our own

best

interest. That is the end of liberty. It is quintessentially the definition

of tyranny.

 

 

 

© 2010 Jonathan W. Emord -

 

 

 

----------

----

 

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and

administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul

calls Jonathan " a hero of the health freedom revolution. " He has defeated the

FDA in federal court a remarkable six times, four times on First Amendment

grounds. He is the author of _The Rise of Tyranny_

(http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD & Store_Code=NWVS & \

Product_Code=B88 & Cat

egory_Code=B-GP) .

(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)