Is Healthcare Constitutional?

I don't like to share opinions much. Just joking, I don't take sides on certain political issues unless I have done some form of research though. There is nothing worse than an ignorant person spouting his mouth off. A lot of people have been asking me about the healthcare bill and what I thought. I did not want to give my answer because I didn't have the ability to keep up with the details of said bill. However, one teacher had asked the class an intelligent question that I could answer with research on a constant firm unchanging source. He asked if the Congress had a right to constitutionally make such a law. Here is what I found on my research...

There is much to say about the question of healthcare. However, the US Constitution has an ability to be both very specific in what we ought not to do and where we may overreach in our powers, yet it is very broad on what powers we do have. Basically, this is not a black and white subject, and it is most closely based on how a person interprets the verbiage on this particular issue. I have decided to go with a listing function to explain my points. Below is enclosed a few quotations directly taken from the Constitution, and I shall state my points one by one after each statement.

I. The first argument of notes is based on Article 1 section 8:

a.) "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (Henretta, and Brody D-12 & D-13) It is my opinion that this authorizes congress to control a certain amount of money attributed to the general welfare of the people which would include both health and defensive measures. Our worst enemy is our own health here in America, so one can argue that the Congress is trying to combat the enemy within. However, the general welfare portion of this line is enough to state that they can try to come up with laws to that end. Otherwise the CDC, and our chemical warfare department along with the military health plans would not be good. Anyone who has undergone a chemical warfare class or exercise would know that there is more about a persons general welfare and health than there is about combating it because the goal is a safety first and environmental control to that ends. The CDC is in many facets of our lives. Surgeon General warnings are posted all-over. Healthcare is merely an extension of these measures, so like it or not the government has already been involved with our health care. This is just a more direct control of the healthcare situation.

b.) "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" (Henretta, and Brody D-13) Healthcare is a business. America is a capitalist nation. It would not be done unless someone has an individual self-interest or means of making money with it on the market. This is why it was within our economic power to refuse healthcare. The argument here is more a question of wether the government can legislate that we must get healthcare if we don't have it. They can regulate it because it is a business. Can they make us get healthcare though? I would argue that if it is for our general welfare than the answer is yes based on what I stated above. This is why it is important for each and every person to be involved with politics and place their votes. A voice unspoken can not complain. The unborn voices won't know any different.

c.) "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" (Henretta, and Brody D-13) Whoever, controls the flow of the money has solidified their control over business. This gives Congress control of the money which is a trump card for all commerce. A company with a million dollars can have the value of its money, which is just a medium of exchange, go to the same value of one dollar which could put them out of business. This is why people are so afraid when the market goes down and the national debt goes up. If money is a means of exchange, then at any point, it can be declared useless eventhough it is a highly unlikely situation.

d.) "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (Henretta, and Brody D-13) This can be seen as stating that Congress has the right to govern American forces anywhere such as land, sea, air, and space. There is not much more to say here.

e.) "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And" (Henretta, and Brody D-13) This is self-explanatory...

f.) "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (Henretta, and Brody D-13) This is a confirmation statement. The US Constitution is one that solidifies power in three ways. There is always a parent who writes the law and has his intentions, there is a body that carries out the law, and there is a spirit of the law. At the beginning the forefathers wrote the first laws, the president and armed forces executed it, and the witnesses that signed the first documents held to the intent and spirit of the law, and some risked their life to sign the Declaration of Independence. Now, Congress is the parent that makes the law so that is by the people and for the people. The president carries out the law, and the judges hold to the spirit or intent of the US Constitution. The document itself holds the same values. The bill of rights is the parent and intent, the law is letter of commands to state what is without conflicting the spirit of the entire document, and the last statement in lack of better words says do it. This means that you have the power to enforce it now carry it out.

II. The second argument of note is based on Amendment X:

a.) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Henretta, and Brody D-20) This is where there is a conflict of interests. One could argue that if a state enacts a law specifically tailored to deal with Healthcare because it has become an issue, then they can; however, what happens if they preempt a federal law that is in the making. This argument has three ways of siding: who gets it in the books first, whose law shall be placed into legislature first, and does the state or federal government control this issue. In favor of the federal government, the states act as a body or a united consensus; therefore, if all of the states don't have specific measures, then the federal government can make a standard for all states. This happens with education and other laws, but it must be a fair and impartial law for all the states. A state enacting a law that states that federal government can not impose upon state law a healthcare is a fallacy law because the first part of the constitution states that the government has a responsibility to the general welfare of its people. Now, if all the states made such a law, then it could be argued most definitely that healthcare was a state issue. Unfortunately, for other would be opponents of the healthcare bill, this can be seen as a stall tactic to slow the bill down. I say this only because bill put into place means that the general group in Congress (2/3 majority) has agreed with and voted for the bill. This in a way may also trump state laws; however, if a state feels strongly about an issue, then they can have other options. These options are not the best though because no one wants to live in another one. I will not mention the option because I do not agree or think that it is reasonable over this specific issue. People need to see how the law plays out.

III. The third argument of note is based on Amendment IV:

a.) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Henretta, and Brody D-19) The only question here is a question of privacy. However, despite HIPAA laws, if a person has a really contagious disease, then can that be known by government to keep the person quarantined? The answer is yes, provided they protect their privacy in documentation. Yet, some patients are labeled. People have a right to be secure in their persons, so the question arises as to whether or not the mundane health issues and disabilities remain private or not.

IV. The fourth argument of note is based on Amendment XIV:

"Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (Henretta, and Brody D-21 & D-22) Everything here is important to note, but the key point should be focused around the immunities set forth in this amendment. The toughest question for a person to ask is one about whether or not a person must get healthcare since it is essentially forcing a person to buy a product. Which it is depriving a person of liberty to choose and property. A key word is that the law says state. The best way for a federal government to do it is by offering a nationwide impartial policy of sorts with private competition. The federal one must be affordable to the lowest person of the US, and the private competition must be available to all as well. This means that the liberty of a person is not violated and a private option allows for a person to choose where their property (money) goes. The only way the healthcare could be argued is to pick it apart piece by piece.

Finally, I know it was a lot to go through, but any law made must be in harmony with the entire US Constitution. The only way to argue the bill is to pick it apart piece by piece which is a lawyer's job. In general, the government can make any law based around healthcare so long as it is authorized (²/₃ Vote, presidential signing, the legislation process, etc...), fair/impartial, available to even those with no income, protects the privacy at appropriate levels, synchronizes harmoniously with the US Constitution, and it honestly aims for the general welfare of the people within justification of the prior mentioned amendments. The other point is that healthcare is a business. Like it or not Congress has control over America's purse, and its commerce. Congress can do a lot more than simply make legislature on healthcare. The argument is not one of can they, but it is more of question of should they get involved. This becomes an economics question at that point because it asks whether the government can run a more efficient operation than the private companies. Some would use social security, Medicare, and Medicaid to argue against it. Some might use the FBI, CIA, US Military, and other such agencies to argue for government efficiency. The biggest truth is that a person can not have a good answer without proof or evidence of failure and pitfalls and realizing that everyone makes mistakes as well. This is where, in a perfect world, a lawyer, English analyst (English major and expert), economist's, doctor, expert patient, an expert veteran, a Constitutional expert, and a poor man with no money examines the bill for fairness, business savvy, proper diction, legality, and honesty. I am not biased towards the bill, but I must admit, there is much in the details that could make or break a person's argument for or against healthcare which means that everything is based on whether or not it meets the proper criteria. Before an argument is stated, a person should ask one question, "What does the healthcare bill do?" This can be answered by going to google and finding the document which has been readily made available. The devil of any law is in the details.

Henretta, James, and David Brody. America. 4th ed. 2. Boston:

Bedford/st Martins, 2009. D-10 to D-26. Print.