Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Please CLICK, DIGG, and REDDIT - and FOLLOW Mike on Twitter:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d5-Why-federal-health-control-is-like-federal-gun-control
SNIP
Just like federal gun control schemes, federal health control schemes can be attacked on constitutional grounds. There are two lines of attack.
First, federal action can be attacked as violating individual rights.
Federal gun control schemes have been successfully attacked as violating the individual right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DC's handgun ban and inflexible trigger lock law. Subsequently at least two federal judges have that under the Second Amendment, "federal laws depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Same result in United States v. Kennedy, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2008).
Likewise federal health control schemes can be challenged as violating the individual right to privacy. As I previously here, legal experts question the constitutionality of health control rationing and regulation in under Roe v. Wade's right to privacy framework.
Second, federal health control can be challenged as . . .
Please CLICK, DIGG, and REDDIT - and FOLLOW Mike on Twitter:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d5-Why-federal-health-control-is-like-federal-gun-control
SNIP
Just like federal gun control schemes, federal health control schemes can be attacked on constitutional grounds. There are two lines of attack.
First, federal action can be attacked as violating individual rights.
Federal gun control schemes have been successfully attacked as violating the individual right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DC's handgun ban and inflexible trigger lock law. Subsequently at least two federal judges have that under the Second Amendment, "federal laws depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Same result in United States v. Kennedy, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2008).
Likewise federal health control schemes can be challenged as violating the individual right to privacy. As I previously here, legal experts question the constitutionality of health control rationing and regulation in under Roe v. Wade's right to privacy framework.
Second, federal health control can be challenged as . . .