My paralegal friend forwarded some very interesting information this morning, from a lawyer, concerning the proposed hostile takeover of health care. I am including the text of the e-mail and you can check out the links for yourself.
The current debate about “national health care” is exclusively centered on the merits of various provisions in the multiple versions offered by different factions in Congress, all of whom presume that America is destined to have such a program, in one form or another. Completely removed from the debate over this matter is any mention of the absence of constitutional authority for the feds to establish such a scheme in the jurisdiction of the several States. It is reputed that when an astute critic of this legislative tragedy noted this constitutional defect to a Congressman, he received a smug reply: “show me where we cannot enact this program.” Apparently, there are lots of constitutionally challenged federal legislators besides Pelosi.
There is one very profound constitutional objection to this federal gamble to subject Americans and their health care to the control of politicians and bureaucrats. Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdictions of the States. See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925)("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government"); Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926)(“It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”); and Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004)(“The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are ‘the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.’ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 737, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has made the constitutional principle clear: ‘Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.’ Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819 (1925); see also Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct. 650, 98 L.Ed. 829 (1954) (‘It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.’). The Attorney General ‘may not . . . regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.’ Conant, 309 F.3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).”).
And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935).
Please spread the word and loudly object to your Congressman.