Sheila Jackson Lee, Health Care and 5th Amendment

[novice skeptic]

“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process," she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. "That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.

Is a vote to repeal Obamacare unconstitutional under the due process clause of the 5th amendment? Anyone want to defend that reading of the clause?

 

[Newtons Bit]

She's apparently unclear on what the phrase "due process" means. That's rather scary for a Representative.

 

[quixotecoyote]

“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process," she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. "That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.

Is a vote to repeal Obamacare unconstitutional under the due process clause of the 5th amendment? Anyone want to defend that reading of the clause?

I think it can work, if you go blank slate and ignore judicial interpretations limiting the definitions of terms.

Once you have a program where people are given the money they need to access life-saving care they could not otherwise afford and thus attain (transplants, for example), then ending that program functionally kills them.

The fly in the ointment for this reading is that if you read "life" to mean access to lifesaving care granted by legislation, then you can probably read "due process" as more legislation ending that care.

 

[DJW]

Does a fetus deserve 5th amendment protection? Would you mind not opening up cans of worms Ms. Jackson Lee? Thanks.

 

[KingMerv00]

I hate people who make declarations about the Constitution but don't read common law. She obviously hasn't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is a vote to repeal Obamacare unconstitutional under the due process clause of the 5th amendment? Anyone want to defend that reading of the clause?

I heard something on an NPR discussion about the Constitution today that is appropriate.

My paraphrase is, just because something is a really bad idea doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

And conversely, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea or should be passed.

(In case it's not clear, no I too would not try to defend that reading of the 5th Amendment. Frankly the idea that repealing any law that Congress has the authority to pass is somehow unconstitutional doesn't make the least bit of sense.)

 

[novice skeptic]

I heard something on an NPR discussion about the Constitution today that is appropriate.

My paraphrase is, just because something is a really bad idea doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

And conversely, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea or should be passed.

(In case it's not clear, no I too would not try to defend that reading of the 5th Amendment. Frankly the idea that repealing any law that Congress has the authority to pass is somehow unconstitutional doesn't make the least bit of sense.)

One can certainly oppose (for moral, utilitarian, selfish or political reasons) legislation to repeal Obamacare. But that really isn't as interesting to me as the idea that an actual House member is either 1) shockingly ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution or 2) Just making **** up

 

[Beerina]

I vote for knowingly lying out her ass in order to feed rhetoric to supporters.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

One can certainly oppose (for moral, utilitarian, selfish or political reasons) legislation to repeal Obamacare. But that really isn't as interesting to me as the idea that an actual House member is either 1) shockingly ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution or 2) Just making sh$t up

And sadly, the fact that people saying absurd things is more interesting, those are the ones whose voices tend to be heard.

FWIW, I think the ignorance of her statement goes beyond ignorance of the Constitution. The logic that something that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass is something that Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to repeal is absurd, even if you know nothing about the constitution.

I think it's because people are confusing "good idea" and "bad idea" with the terms "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" respectively.

ETA: It also seem permissible to go to those absurd extremes when people no longer characterize their political opponents as having reasonable disagreements. Instead, it's OK to characterize them as being Nazis or "socialists" or wanting to establish "death panels" or intending to incite a shooting spree and so on.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is a vote to repeal Obamacare unconstitutional under the due process clause of the 5th amendment? Anyone want to defend that reading of the clause?

There's no such thing as "Obamacare".

 

[novice skeptic]

There's no such thing as "Obamacare".

Neither were there programs called "Star Wars" or "Bush Tax Cuts" (well at least as that phrased was used in the last election cycle). But they became called that due to public usage. The fact that all of a sudden some are running away from the name "Obamacare" (which they themselves used back when they thought it was a good political idea) doesn't mean that the name hasn't stuck in the public consciousness. Thus it is a fair term to use when discussing it. Only the overly pedantic have a problem with it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Neither were there programs called "Star Wars" or "Bush Tax Cuts" (well at least as that phrased was used in the last election cycle). But they became called that due to public usage. The fact that all of a sudden some are running away from the name "Obamacare" (which they themselves used back when they thought it was a good political idea) doesn't mean that the name hasn't stuck in the public consciousness. Thus it is a fair term to use when discussing it. Only the overly pedantic have a problem with it.

The only people who use that term are the teabaggers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The only people who use that term are the teabaggers.

I don't much like the term, and I try not to use it, but it's certainly shorter and easier than most options.

I believe someone pointed out that the first occurrence of the term was in an op-ed piece (or maybe a column or editorial) in favor of it.

Still, I think at least for some time during the debate its use was primarily derogatory. Nowadays, I think it's more neutral.

 

[novice skeptic]

The only people who use that term are the teabaggers.

1) False: from a post on Free Republic: I'm sure the term "Obamacare" was 'coined' by many people at the same time. It was patterned after the term "Hillarycare."

That said, a LexisNexis search of all news media shows that Wayne Madsen of the Progressive Online Journal was the first to use the phrase "Obamacare" in a pro-Obamacare article titled Obama's well-crafted plan offers Americans full coverage without emptying the Treasury, on April 4, 2008 in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Here's the money quote:

"Obama's national health insurance program, let's call it "ObamaCare," provides Americans with affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles."

If there is an earlier reference to the term, it doesn't show up on the LexisNexis search.


If you have evidence of a Tea Party member using the word earlier, please post it.

2) There is no group called "teabaggers" so by your own logic you shouldn't use it.

Google obamacare and look at the first result.

 

[C_Felix]

For the sake of debate, here's the 5th:

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.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of lay"
Sounds like justification for those death panels I've heard Hannity talk about.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

2) There is no group called "teabaggers" so by your own logic you shouldn't use it.

False. We've been over this before on this forum. Do you really want to be embarassed again?

Google obamacare and look at the first result.

No.