Sheila Jackson Lee: Repealing Health Care is really unconstitutional UPDATE: Repeal will kill Americans?

Via HotAir … and just too good not to repost. AP, has a hard time trying to follow the Texas Democrat’s logic, as he should, but I’ll give him an “A” for trying. Congresswoman Lee on the House floor yesterday trying to make the case that repealing Obamacare violates the 5th, and 14th amendments. Judo!

I love Democrats. If the in thing is “Constitutionality”, then by gosh, shoehorn that doggone Obamacare argument into it. Hey, while we are at it, why not bring the 1st, 2nd and 26th amendment into it as well.

The relevant bite comes exactly at … 1:35:03.

For the record …. here’s the fourth amendment:

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.

Hmmm … here’s what AP has to say about this.

Thus do nine-month-old legislatively-granted entitlements, some of which haven’t even taken effect yet, become “rights.” If you take this idea seriously, then meaningful reform of Social Security and Medicare (which Lee presumably would describe as property for Due Process purposes) would require constitutional amendments, which in turn would utterly paralyze a process that’s already close to total paralysis. Or have I misunderstood? If she’s suggesting that some lesser process is due than a full Article V amendment, then, er, shouldn’t a repeal bill duly enacted by Congress suffice? Or is the argument here that people with preexisting conditions, say, have always had a right to coverage under the Constitution and only lately have we “progressed” to the point where we’re willing to recognize that right? In that case, why’d they have to pass a bill last year? Patients should have simply sued and let the courts “find” a right to coverage in the “penumbras” of the Commerce Clause or whatever.

OK, mobstas … have at it.

UPDATE: My bad … it’s the 5th amendment she is referring to. Although, the 4th applies too according to her logic, right? Seizing their healthcare?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

UPDATE 2: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee doubles down. Not only is it unconstitutional but it’s also going to … kill people? From jammieweasringfool.

4 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Ah yes, the Democrat party's "best and brightest".  Is she still looking for the "flag that Neil Armstrong had left on Mars"?  Or celebrating our "victory in Vietnam"?

     

    Yeah, she is my "go to guy" on Constitutional matters…   /sarcasm

  2. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

    She continues to get elected because there is significant ignorance and gov't dependance of the electorate in her district and her party as a whole.

    The problem is that the people who want to hear her speak without tuning her out, will not fact check or sense check her.

     Decorum is such that no republican will stand up and school this dunce on the floor. Therefore her words are on the record and will be trotted out as fact in the media.

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Oh I am in awe! Did you actually listen to 2 hours and 27 min. of that debate? I listened to Paul Ryan and one more minute to a Democrat and totally gave up. I take your word for it. I did listen to the 47 seconds video of Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, where she instructed the "new" people in Congress to see the "whole" picture of governing. Does that mean that you disregard the 75% of the people opposed to the Healthcare Reform as passed? What whole picture is she talking about?

Comments are closed.