Are Healthcare Mandates Unconstitutional? - David Rivkin Video

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/26/Are_Healthcare_Purchase_Mandates_Constitutional

Attorney David Rivkin argues that a congressional mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. "If you can mandate the purchase of health insurance, you can mandate the purchase of health club memberships."

-----

The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance: A debate of opposing viewpoints as to whether an individual mandate to purchase insurance is constitutional with Louis Michael Seidman, Georgetown University Law Center, and David B. Rivkin, Jr., Baker Hostetler. - Georgetown University

David B. Rivkin, Jr., is a member of the firm Baker Hostetler, litigation, international and environmental groups. He has in-depth experience with various constitutional issues that are frequently implicated by federal regulatory statutes, including commerce clause-, appointments clause- and due process-related issues, as well as First and Tenth amendment-related matters.

Mr. Rivkin also has practiced in the area of public international law and has extensive experience in international arbitration and policy advocacy on a wide range of international and domestic issues, including treaty implementation, multilateral and unilateral sanctions, corporate law, environmental and energy matters (with an emphasis on policy, regulatory and enforcement issues).

Save & Share:

felixthehuman: 1. That was burntonion05, not me. Car insurance is a state matter, so it doesn't provide precedent in this case. 2. Like I pointed out, the cost of not having insurance is borne by those who have it- the difference between the current system and a system where everyone pays is between those who can afford all the healthcare they need, and those whose care is written off, are those who are not poor but need care they can't afford (or that is not covered), so become poor.

felixthehuman: Hamilton was one of the founding fathers, he wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers, and he was at the Constitutional Convention. The meaning of the welfare clause was debatable at the time, and it is no less so now. Your view is supported by Madison, mine by Hamilton, there is precedent for both in cases decided since. You can't just give the guy who agrees with you the final say.

Daniel44125: The welfare clause was written by Madison. Hamilton was trying to manipulate the meaning later on. The view Hamilton had is not in line with freedom or natural rights. People have a right to their property and what they do with their property is their own business as long as it does not hurt anyone else. In Hamilton's view the state is not limited to protecting individual rights as the Declaration of Independence clearly states was the reason for our gov creation

Daniel44125: You can't go to a fellow citizen and force him to do something against his will therefore you can't delegate this power to government. Governments only have power which is derived justly from the people. In effect we give the government some of our power. The power we give it is the power of force we have to secure our own rights. Therefore that is the only power government has is securing rights.

Daniel44125: John Adams was also a founding father and when he was elected president he and the Federalists passed a law making the freedom of speech illegal. Alien and Sedition Acts. Not all the founders were perfect or understood natural rights. Those rights exists before government. Those rights our the reason the government exists. The government exists only to protect those rights.

OutragedPeople: Our President is using car insurance as an analogy for the health insurance mandate. Hmm. Did he go to law school?

OutragedPeople: I don't think Hamilton wrote the majority of the Fed. papers. What's your source?

felixthehuman: The Federalist Papers.

OutragedPeople: Agree. Using this logic, and with the legal "philosophy" that social context can justify any interpretation of the constitution, the government can hijack any resource you own or require your behavior because some segment of the economy is not functioning well. And the exercise of this type of power is called . . . . . ?

OutragedPeople: I do not trust this government's judgment. Barney Frank bankrupted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it's not getting any better.

shamefulidiot: i think the argument that if you can make purchasing health care mandatory you can then make it mandatory to purchase other things is really just a poor slippery slope fallacy. and quite ridiculous really, specially the groceries part and what not.

freesk8: Tyranny. Dictatorship. Socialism.

marniespeaks: Bush killed the Constitution

OutragedPeople: You do not have the facts on your side.

OutragedPeople: Watching this debate as played out in the media for the past 4 months, here's my take: the liberals can't win the argument, and they are resorting to personal attacks and elitist denouncements of the conservative position. The conservatives are appealing to individuals who value freeDOM more than freeSTUFF from Uncle Sam.

marniespeaks: Bush is a war criminal

OutragedPeople: The sweeping, groundless condemnations of Bush or any historical figure only serve as an indictment of our educational system. Logic, data, and civility have been discarded in favor of ill-informed, anarchistic denouncements.

OutragedPeople: Seidman debated Rivkin again on November 14 (Fox) and tried to lecture David Rivkin on what conservatives believe. No facts, no cases, just typical, elitist, dismissive quarreling from Seidman.

OutragedPeople: The reason why the "slippery slope" argument is valid is that our legal system operates on precedent.

OutragedPeople: David Rivkin will be speaking at the Milwaukee Lawyers Federalist Society on November 30 at noon. Check the Federalist Society website for details.

JustOurFreedom: I can attest to the impugning of personal motives when a winning argument is noticeably lacking.

greyflcn: @OutragedPeople So would that mean that school attendance mandates are also illegal? I did watch the debate and all I saw was this made up "limiting principle" which Rivkin kept going on and on about. Ultimately he never made the argument that there was any violation with the letter of the law.

OutragedPeople: No. The point David Rivkin makes here and elsewhere is that Congress has never required nor has it the authority to require that a citizen purchase something. Public education is a responsibility of the states, not the federal and the federal government has not required that a family or person purchase anything related to education. .Re: violation. Politely suggest you read the Constitution, which empowers legislators to write laws.

greyflcn: @OutragedPeople Well, he may have a case for this being unprecedented, however I see nowhere in his discussion anything in the actually letter of the law that specifically restricts it.

LicentiousSlut: The Democrats can claim separation of powers perhaps but they have an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution to the best of their ability. The Democrats have decided not to even consider the constitutionality of their legislation as there oath requires. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, but why pass unconstitutional law that violate their oath of office anyway? The Democrats don't care if healthcare "reform" is unconstitutional and want it passed tonight.

Author: ForaTv; Uploaded: Nov 9, 2009; Duration: 2:32; Views: 723

Tags: health  care  insurance  insured  mandates  mandated  regulation  regulated  private  public  plan  congress  house  senate  plans  supreme  court  law  legal  illegal  rivkin report review rivkin stockbroking rivkin radler rivkin ncis rivkin radler law firm rivkin family foundation rivkin and ryan rivkin securities rivkin singapore rivkin report