Monday, March 22, 2010

Obamacare: Unconstitutional Legislation Passed on Unconstiutional Grounds

It comes as no surprise that Obamacare was passed yesterday by the House. From the start this bill has had the odds in its favor, backed by a majority whose dissenting members always find a way to cave into the administration's demands. If you are shocked by Obamacare's passage, you still have a lot to learn when it comes to the political process. (I advise you start educating yourselves about the concept of nullification, for it is our greatest hope to bring our nation back to its constitutional confines.)

One thing that should not shock, though it should disgust, is the deal cut between President Obama and so-called "pro-life" Democrats represented by Rep. Bart Stupack. Stupack and his associates agreed to support the legislation even though it doesn't prohibit federal abortion funding in exchange for President Obama signing an executive order addressing the issue. That is the true outrage of the entire healthcare fiasco. Not only is the whole of the legislation unconstitutional, the deal struck for its passage is founded on unconstitutional ground.

Democrats where right to criticize President Bush for his excessive use of executive orders; now their tune has changed. Only the legislature can make law. Any attempt by the other branches--be it executive or judicial--is a violation of the Constitution and an affront to our liberty.

Though it is de facto used as such, an executive order is not legally binding. It is nothing more than a operation memo for the executive branch. It is sort of like your boss sending out a memo saying, "I know shorts are against company policy, but we're gonna let Rob keep wearing them because he has a cast."

If the law is applied according to the books, executive orders are nothing but ink on  a paper. What Stupack and others have done is placed all their confidence in the Obama administration's claim that they will not use funds for abortion. Even if general funds were able to be separated and applied to non-abortion areas, which it can't, Stupack has betray all reason. Even if the Obama administration refuses to allow payment for abortions, what if our next president decides to consistently apply the legislation and allow for abortion funding?

Moreover, because executive orders have no legal weight, courts would be compelled to uphold abortion funding if ruling on the legislation--that is if they upheld the legislation itself as legitimate. Stupack's trust was put in application of the law, rather than the law itself.  And he may pay down the road for it.

The healthcare fight has been about neglecting constitutional authority from the start. The bill itself flies in the face of the Constitution. What makes things worse is the passage of the bill hinged on unconstitutional means. Until we start revering liberty and the Constitution which seeks to secure that liberty, we will continue to see this disturbing behavior and our liberties crumble.


  1. Are you saying Stupack is not truly "pro life" (which seems like the general critique within the article) or do you also have an issue with the labels "pro-life" and "pro choice" since they make unrealistic polarizations of the opponents? Just inquiring, that's been my two cents on much of that issue in my own blog. Keep at it.

  2. check out what planned parenthood ceo had to say about the matter of the "exective order"

    "...Nonetheless, we regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

    What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban."


  3. Muichimotsu-I read you post and am in agreement for the most part. Like all terms used in public discourse, they often fail to properly describe true positions and are instead merely political tools.

    My point in the post was to be less about Stupak's convictions and more about the use of an executive order to pacify so called "pro-life" legislators, though I did touch on a bit more.

    Since you ask, I would say that if by "pro-life" we mean anti-abortion, then Stupak has showed that he is not too concerned with preventing federal abortion funding and therefore not consistently "pro-life" according to what he has previously said. The video I posted today is quite telling:

    Mike-Thanks for sharing. Telling words on the issue.

  4. Rather than focusing on the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy, I would hope that people would note the standard-issue cult-and-communist "reprogramming"/"re-education" methods which were deployed in order to secure passage of the original House bill and now of the final monstrosity. Our Representatives were confined to chambers, isolated from their friends, family, staff and support structure (and most importantly, isolated from contact with their constituents). They were forced to keep inhumanly long hours, which degrades their judgment and introduces the devil's deal of agreeing to the unconscionable in order to secure near-term rest for themselves. Isolation and sleep deprivation are used by evil-doers who desire to force their victims to act against their principles. These tactics should be banned from the halls of Congress; they're un-American, anti-Liberty and lead to the very WORST legislation becoming law. I'm just sick at the news that this nightmare now has force of law.

  5. Indeed, it was a monstrosity, but that is no excuse for any "aye" vote. Minds should have been made up months ago. Obamacare is repugnant to the Constitution and to a free society.