FINALLY, CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BEING RAISED ABOUT OBAMACARE

When I first learned of the mandate that all Americans would be REQUIRED to purchase health care, a clause found in every health care bill that either the House or the Senate is proposing for the government take over of health care, I raised the question of the Constitutionality of this one particular mandate. My question was and still is, "where in the Constitution does any government entity have the authority to require Americans to purchase anything?"

There have been so many Constitutional questions concerning much of Obama's agenda but this one particular mandate found in the health care agenda is one of the most blatant Constitutional violations, yet no one was challenging this attack by every health care proposal on our freedom and our Constitutional rights. Well FINALLY the Constitutional question concerning the mandate to purchase health care coverage is being raised and if this long overdue challenge is successful it will be the legal and binding death to all forms of Obamacare.

Fox News is reporting that Constitutional attorney David Rivkin is calling the mandate to purchase health care, "an unprecedented imposition on individual liberty." Officers of The Congressional Budget Office stated, "The government has never required people to buy any good or service, as condition of lawful residence in the United States." And according to the CBO this one center piece of Obamacare is, "the most challenging question," about the health care debate because it is unprecedented in its theft of individual liberty.

Those who defend the mandate to purchase health care use the Interstate Commerce Clause which allows the Congress to regulate all interstate commerce and because health care supplies, medicines, etc. are subject to interstate commerce, Congress can mandate the purchase of health care under the clause. But again it still comes down to the question of the Constitutional authority of Congress to require Americans to purchase anything.

The argument using automobile insurance as a requirement example of mandated purchasing does not hold water for two reasons. First if someone does not drive then they are not required to purchase auto insurance except in states where it is required to have a drivers license, but not for a legal ID. Second auto insurance is not for the protection of the one purchasing the insurance but for the protection of those who may be involved in an accident with the policy holder. Health care under the mandate will be required regardless of choice or condition and it is for the purchaser and not to protect someone else.

According to Rivik the insurance requirement is an attempt to dictate personal behavior and, "What’s unique about here is the mandate imposed on individuals is merely because they live." Raising Constitutional questions about this health care debacle is long overdue and the legal avenue needed to insure that this monstrosity is not passed and forced on the American people. The only remaining question is, " will Obama and Congressional leadership bow to the restraints and protection of rights in our Constitution which they so obviously have shown little if any adherence to since Obama took office ?" We shall see. It is up to we the people to hold their feet to the Constitutional fire !

Ken Taylor