BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question boils down to whether "being alive" meets the criteria of "due process" required for the government to infringe upon the rights to life, liberty, and property as described in said amendment.
That statement makes no @#%^ing sense whatsoever. I cannot possibly fathom what made you think it did.
You can't fathom that a law which effectively makes it illegal to be alive might just violate the constitution?
Maybe I just need to go really slow?
The 5th amendment states that a person cannot be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without "due process". Due process means passage of some law which clearly defines the conditions under which one may be deprived of those things. So a law which punishes you for stealing with jail time connects the loss of liberty with the
act of stealing. A penalty for driving a car without insurance connects the loss of property (the fine) with the
act of driving without legally obtaining insurance.
What is the condition under which one must obtain health care? The condition is "living". Thus, the "due process" in this case effectively makes "living" an
act which can be punished. But the "act" of living requires a choice. The only choice one can make in that case is to choose *not* to live. Hence, my earlier joke about suicide being viewed as a legitimate choice allowing one to "opt out" of health care.
The net result is that one must choose to be deprived of life, or of property, with no choice in between. Surely, you see how that violates the 5th amendment, right? Due process must provide a means by which one can avoid being deprived of any of those rights. But the law as written doesn't. Hence, it's unconstitutional right off the bat. I'm sure there are dozens of other arguments which can be used against it as well, that's just the most obvious one.
Edited, Aug 2nd 2010 7:54pm by gbaji