Tea party proponent claims constitutional questions with health care reform

Debra McCown

Nov. 6, 2009 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- ABINGDON, Va. -- If health care reform is passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, the law will likely face an immediate Constitutional challenge.

Local attorney Strother Smith, who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, is among a group of Constitutional lawyers from several states who are promising to take the reform law before the high court.

Smith said the legislation violates six Constitutional amendments -- including free speech guarantees and protections against illegal search and seizure.

"If the court finds it is unconstitutional, anything the government has done to carry it out would have to be undone," Smith said. "Hopefully that would cause the federal government to not do anything about the law until all the constitutional questions have been answered."

Smith's organization, the 10th Amendment Foundation Inc., was born out of the tea party movement, which opposes government growth beyond the powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Proponents of the proposed health care legislation contend the sweeping reforms are necessary to make health care more affordable -- especially here in Southwest Virginia.

"This bill has gotten lots and lots of debate from all sides," said Brian Johns, a Southwest Virginia organizer for the Virginia Organizing project, which has been drumming up support for health care reform. "It's something that has to get done," Johns said.

Scott Ambrose, a business professor at Emory and Henry College who has studied health care issues, said the cost of care is shockingly high in Southwest Virginia because of poor health statistics -- and despite his concerns about the potential for increasing costs and rationing of care, he supports the reform effort because the current system needs a major overhaul.

Ambrose also said he doesn't think the reform legislation is unconstitutional.

"I think some solution needs to happen," he said. "I think they'd have to look at it again if it's ruled as unconstitutional."

Smith said several amendments to the U.S. Constitution would be violated by the legislation. Those amendments and his reasons include:

--The First Amendment: The legislation would compel senior citizens to discuss end-of-life matters, taking over an area long held to be the domain of religious leaders and infringing on free speech.

--The Fourth and Fifth Amendments: The legislation allows the seizure of money and records without due process.

--The Ninth and 10th Amendments: Congress does not have the power to impose mandatory health insurance; only individual states have that right, Smith said.

--The 14th Amendment: The legislation discriminates between residents of different states and against those who do not belong to labor unions.

--The 16th Amendment: Developing a national insurance plan is a form of social engineering -- not the simple revenue-raising purpose of taxation.

"I just hope the mere fact that we're doing this will cause some Congressmen to think twice about voting for it," Smith said.

| (276) 791-0701

Newstex ID: KRTB-0313-39504657