The Law of the Land is still the U.S. Constitution, and ObamaCare violates it in ways not addressed by the Supreme Court in the case brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states. A case filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) three days after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law points out the violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The PPACA requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance or face stiff penalties—thus taking property (money) from Americans to benefit private entities, including insurance company executives. AAPS was the first to assert this important constitutional claim. AAPS argues that the Taxing and Spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies. AAPS v. Sebelius was stayed until the Supreme Court handed down its decision in NFIB. In declaring the individual mandate to be a tax, Chief Justice Roberts opened the door to another challenge: the violation of the Origination Clause. All revenue-raising bills must originate in the House of Representatives, and the wording in PPACA as passed came from the Senate. AAPS is now litigating that issue, as is the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Another case concerning the Origination Clause and the Takings Clause was filed in May in the Fifth Circuit by Texas physician Steve F. Hotze, M.D., and his business. The case is Hotze v. Sebelius, 4:13-cv-01318 (S.D. Texas). Hotze challenges both the individual mandate and the application of ObamaCare to mid-size companies like the one he founded. He notes that ObamaCare will cause millions to lose their health insurance and their ability to access their own physician, despite promises by Democrats to the contrary when they passed the bill. There is no precedent for government to take property from one citizen in order to transfer it directly to another, Hotze writes, and many precedents prohibit such compelled transfers as a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A disagreement between the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit would increase the likelihood of Supreme Court review. Unlike a number of other cases that are pending, as on grounds of violations of religious liberty, Sissel, AAPS, and Hotze have the potential to void the entire Act. Dr. Jane M. Orient, M.D. is Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Posted on: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:22:17 +0000