A Few Words From A Juris Doctor

With people showing up at townhall meetings asking questions about “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009“, the health care bill, you would think that our representatives in Congress would have read the bill by now.

I’m sure many of them have assigned their staff to read parts of the bill, but how many of them have actually read it themselves? I sure would like to know.

While I was sitting here tonight trying to decide what I was going to write about, I was reviewing some of my previous posts and I got to thinking about the fact that this bill is nothing short of unconstitutional. It also violates the Tenth Amendment. In my analysis of the health care bill, on Day Three, I pointed out the clear violation of States rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

Section 208 removes a States right to offer their own State-based health insurance.

If—

(1) a State (or group of States, subject to the approval of the Commissioner) applies to the Commissioner for approval of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange to operate in the State (or group of States); and

(2) the Commissioner approves such State-based Health Insurance Exchange,

then, subject to subsections (c) and (d), the State-based Health Insurance Exchange shall operate, instead of the Health Insurance Exchange, with respect to such State (or group of States). The Commissioner shall approve a State-based Health Insurance Exchange if it meets the requirements for approval under subsection (b).

The “Commissioner” must approve any State-based “Exchange”, therefore denying States rights granted under the U.S Constitution.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states,

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.

The U.S. Constitution does not give the United States (the feds) the authority to regulate health care within the borders of the States, and it also doesn’t prohibit the States from doing so, therefore, the United States (the feds) can not legally decide what the States can and cannot do in regard to health care. There is no right side or left side of this argument, it’s written in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I then wondered whose job it is to make sure the bills which are introduced in the House do not violate current legal statutes, our civil liberties, or constitutional law. A quick search (and common sense) told me this must be handled by the Judiciary Committee of the House Of Representatives.

Sure enough, the following list shows the jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

1. The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal.
2. Administrative practice and procedure.
3. Apportionment of Representatives.
4. Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
5. Civil liberties.
6. Constitutional amendments.
7. Criminal law enforcement.
8. Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories and possessions.
9. Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.
10. Interstate compacts generally.
11. Claims against the United States.
12. Members of Congress, attendance of members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner; and their acceptance of incompatible offices.
13. National penitentiaries.
14. Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and trademarks.
15. Presidential succession.
16. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
17. Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United States.
18. State and territorial boundary lines.
19. Subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States.

I knew the Judiciary Committee handled the “legal” stuff, but I never knew they controlled the state boundary lines, or patents and copyrights. It’s amazing what you learn when you read.

I honestly believe there is nothing you can’t do, if you just take the time to learn how, and learning how to do something can be as simple as picking up a book and reading.

As you see above, the Judiciary Committee is responsible for reviewing any bills that involve House administrative practice and procedure, our civil liberties, constitutional amendments, and revision and codification of the Statutes of the United States. The members of this committee must be very smart.

Due to the legal nature of the committee’s work it has been customary for members of the committee to have a legal background. In a time of great change and scientific progress an expanding list of issues, including intellectual property, cloning, and the internet, require committee members to possess a wide breadth of knowledge in order to effectively address concerns from these and other new areas.

Because the health care bill will in fact impede some of our civil liberties (remember the creation of that massive database that will contain all of your financial records, venereal disease tests, vaccination records and school records) and trample the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Judiciary Committee will most likely read and review this bill. Right?

The members of the Judiciary Committee should have a legal background and be fairly knowledgeable with all aspects of the law, right?

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is Rep. John Conyers, Jr. from Michigan’s 14th Congressional district. Rep. Conyers is an educated man. In fact, he is quite skilled in law.

After graduating from Northwestern High School in Detroit, Conyers served in the Michigan National Guard 1948–50; US Army 1950–54; and the US Army Reserves 1954–57. Conyers served for a year in Korea as an officer in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and was awarded combat and merit citations.

Conyers grew up in Detroit, and received both his B.A. and his J.D. from Wayne State University. He served as an assistant to Congressman John Dingell prior to his election to Congress.

Some of you less educated folks (myself included) might be wondering what a J.D. is. The term “J.D.” stands for “Juris Doctor” which means,

a first professional graduate degree and professional doctorate in law.

Originating from the 19th century Harvard movement for the scientific study of law, it is the only law degree that has a goal of being the primary professional preparation for lawyers. It is the only professional doctorate in law and is a three year program in most jurisdictions.

As I said before, Rep. Conyers is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He’s got the legal background needed to serve on the committee.

He’s sure to catch the trampling of the 10th Amendment when he reads the bill.

I bet the creation of such a massive database, a clear violation of our civil liberties, will raise a red flag for him when he reads the bill.

He’s sure to block most of the provisions of this bill before they reach the House floor. Right?

Don’t count on it. It sounds like he has no intention of reading the bill at all.

What purpose is there in having a Judiciary committee (or any other committee) if they have no intention of reading the bill in its entirety?

Why would we support any politician that had no intention of reading the very legislation they will be responsible for vetting and making sure does not violate the Constitution or any of our rights? It’s too late and serves no purpose to read the legislation after the vote.

Hindsight is 20/20 but it won’t stop you from falling off the cliff, unless you walk backwards. Do we really want a government that does things backwards? Why would we, as a people, allow this to happen?