Obamacare__the_Healthcare_Argument_Explained

During the American presidential election of 2008 ‘Change’ seemed to be in the air. In fact this was such the case that then Presidential Candidate Barrack Hussain Obama, Junior offered to the American people his vision of a new form of healthcare that he would strongly support if he had the chance to do so as ‘President of the United States of America’. This was much more than a bland campaign promise that the American people hear at almost every presidential campaign as soon to be President Barrack Hussain Obama, Jr. would prove to be a man of his word in this fundamental ‘change’ to impact America. Fast Forward to the year 2010 and this major piece of legislation is now signed into law. While this was a large law, measuring approximately 400,000 words, and weighing in at about 19 pounds, it was almost immediately questioned by some Americans holding an extremely small document in comparison, the Constitution of the United States of America. This large piece of legislation would be labeled ‘Obamacare’ by some, as it was a masterpiece achieved under the presidency of President Barrack Hussain Obama Jr. Opponents of the Healthcare law hold that the Individual Mandate is not supported by Article I, Section VIII, Clause III of the Constitution; also known as the Commerce clause of the constitution. To understand this argument it is first necessary to look at what the Commerce clause of the Constitution really states. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Therefore, the Federal government is afforded the right to regulate all commerce that crosses state borders, as well as among nations and with ‘Indian’ or to be more politically correct Native American tribes. In order for the federal government then to have the right to regulate, a function previously held by the states they must show that interstate commerce has taken place. This was the view that was held for some 150 years of the Constitution, being upheld at numerous Supreme Court cases. Opponents of the Healthcare Law argue that whenever a patient goes to their local doctor and gets treatment, no interstate commerce has taken place. Therefore, they would argue that the Federal government is not granted any constitutional authority as to regulate this function in any way. Supporters though of this Healthcare law point to healthcare as a fundamental right, especially due to the Declaration of Independence whenever it grants “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Supporters say that it is impossible to be granted this ‘pursuit of happiness’ if they are unable to receive proper medical attention without first parting with their amassed fortune, or at least parting with their fortune to some degree. What is more healthcare is now a fundamental government function according to this new point of view, as is protection of life, and preserving freedom for the masses. A second key argument given is that because of the size of the Healthcare industry is so large, already supporting 14,300,000 jobs according to US Bureau of Labor and Statistics. This great size coupled with the fact that some patients must travel across state borders at times to get certain specialized medical attention that it could then be blanketed under this ‘Commerce Clause’ and be subjected to the will of the large federal government as opposed to the local state governments. Those arguments though are fundamentally invalid for several reasons. It may surprise some that the Declaration of Independence is only considered organic law in the United States, and therefore it, as the Articles of Confederation(which are also considered organic law) has a much more limit amount of power when compared to the current American Constitution. If then the Declaration of Independence is not high law, then the fundamental rights that were borrowed by English philosopher John Locke and later penned by former President Thomas Jefferson are rhetoric at best with no legal power over the supreme law of the land, the current Constitution of these United States. The second issue to arise is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to compel a private citizen by force of penalty to purchase a good or service, simply for being alive. It is interesting to note that this would be the first time in history that the Federal government would be granted this power. This power to individually require citizens to participate in commerce has never before been done in the history of the United States by the Federal Government. Those though in support would point out that certain states such as Texas require citizens of the state who are motorist to have liability auto insurance. There are two key differences in state mandated auto insurance vs. federally mandated health insurance that one does well to take note of whenever making such an argument. The First is that as a state they are granted all rights that were not established as Federal powers in the Constitution under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, the states are given a much more liberal amount of power that may be tailored to fit the individual state, and her people. The second of such differences it that Texas in requiring motorist to purchase liability auto insurance only for those Texans who choose drive. The federal government would be requiring all motorist to purchase auto insurance for the sheer fact that they are an American Citizen. Being a motorist does not apply for those who prefer other forms of transportation, such as biking and public transportation, and therefore will not require all to purchase something for the sheer fact of living. If there was anything that was mandated simply for living by the federal government, than there would be absolutely no point in having federalism, that of shared powers between a supreme federal government and local state governments. The federal government would have the authority to do anything they pleased without limits in their power, making the contract between the Federal Government and the States, the Constitution an open ended contract, one in which all powers that are wanted for any reason may be taken by the national government without reserve. In conclusion, due to the individual mandate within the Healthcare law passed by the 111th Congress, in the second session, the law can therefore be rendered void as it is unconstitutional as it overreaches the necessary boundaries of the United States Constitution as it individually requires commerce to occur at the individual level, simply for being an American citizen. This greatly oversteps the bounds set out in the ‘Commerce Clause’ in the first Article of the Constitution because Healthcare is not a function traditionally carried out across state lines. What is more Healthcare is therefore a power of the individual states under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Works Cited Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Career Guide to Industries, 2010-11 Edition, Healthcare, on the Internet athttp://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm (visited September 25, 2011 ) AmherstCollege. "Is Health Care Reform Constitutional' - YouTube ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . Amherst College, 14 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. . Bob Glover, Bob. "U.S. Constitution clearly forbids this health care law - Sunday, April 4, 2010 | 2:03 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun." Las Vegas Sun. N.p., 4 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. . Madison, James. "The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)." THOMAS (Library of Congress). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. . Representatives, Rep. Fred UptonWhen Republicans regained a majority in the U.S. House of, we embraced the parallel goals of job creation, and drive jobs overseas.&. "House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans." The United States House of Representatives · House.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. . "Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text ." National Archives and Records Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. . "Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text ." National Archives and Records Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. .