« John Lewis, McCarthyite | Main | Forget About Useful Sanctions on Iran »
April 10, 2010
But Is It Constitutional?
All three are disturbing, but the first is the worst.
Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL):
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI):
Congressman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
One, not a single one of these congressmen has the foggiest notion of what is actually in the Constitution.
Two, none of them care.
Congressman Phil Hare blatantly says "I Don't Worry About the Constitution'
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) thinks "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution when it is in the Declaration of Independence
Congressman Frank LoBiondo confuses Article 1 Section 1 with the First Amendment
This is disgraceful. The current attitude is "if we can pass a bill it must be constitutional."
Er, no.
Does The Constitution Matter?
Does the Constitution matter as anything more than a schedule for holding elections? We're all concerned with the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and we talk about them all of the time.
But what about the "welfare clause", which states that
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Or the "interstate commerce" clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Or, finally, the "necessary and proper" clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
For that matter, what about the 9th and 10th Amendments
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The truth is that to most of our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, none of this matters a whit. They trot out the Eighth Amendment when they want to ban the death penalty, or the Second when they want to defend our gun rights. The First, Fourth, and Fifth get a lot of attention too. Otherwise, a dispassionate observer can be excused for thinking that our government document provides little more than a schedule for holding elections.
This said, it is true that liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever term you want to use, are the most blatant in their distain for using the Constitution as any sort of guide as to what laws Congress can or cannot pass. It is they who have twisted the interstate commerce clause out of all recognition, and why buy into a theory of a "living constitution" that essentially says "we're going to make it up as we go along."
If liberals want to bring up the Patriot Act or some such, fine, I'll trade you a Patriot Act for your health care legislation. I'll make those trades all day.
Progressives tried and failed to get FDR's Second Bill of Rights incorporated into the Constitution, they just decided to achieve the same set of objectives through legislative fiat and hope that they could get enough sympathetic justices on the bench who would approve. We've seen the results in everything from Roe v Wade to our current health care legislation.
Which brings us to Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Delegate Bob Marshall
Defenders of the Constitution
Many attorney generals around the U.S. (15 by last count) have filed suit against certain provisions in the Democrat health care bill. Since I live in Virginia, I'm going to concentrate there.
Former state senator Ken Cuccinelli was elected Attorney General last November, and wasted no time in setting forth a Constitutionalist agenda. He explained his lawsuit against Obama Care in an article in National Review yesterday:
There are very good reasons that the federal government has never, in the last 221 years, used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a vehicle for requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from other citizens.The first is textual. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that "the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States." Although there have been disputes about just how far this should reach into commerce that is entirely intrastate, until now, it has been recognized that this constitutional provision deals with regulation of commerce -- that is, with the use of law to impose reason and order on the voluntary commercial actions of citizens, as well as on activities that substantially affect commerce. An individual mandate to purchase health insurance is not regulation in that sense.
Another good reason this has not been done before is that it turns the Commerce Clause into an alternative, off-books funding mechanism. According to the "findings" section of the law itself, the mandate achieves economies of scale, but in reality, it achieves income redistribution. The law caps the amount that insurance companies can charge based on age, and forbids them to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. As such, the young and healthy people the law forces to buy insurance are overcharged for the purpose of subsidizing the old and those with pre-existing conditions.
...Fortunately, Virginia's governor and legislature acted decisively -- and in a bipartisan fashion -- to adopt Virginia's new anti-mandate law, the Health Care Freedom Act. The law states that in Virginia, citizens cannot be compelled to purchase health insurance against their will. It is in direct conflict with the federal health-care bill, and we have filed a lawsuit to defend it.
AG Cuccinelli discusses his lawsuit and how if Virginia loses it will mean the end of federalism in the United States
Also see this Q & A about the lawsuit on the website of the Attorney General.
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R-VA-13) is the one who wrote and introduced the legislation AG Cuccinelli referred to above: HB10, Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, which bans a mandatory federal health insurance mandate. The act was passed by the legislature with large bipartisan supportand signed into law by Governor McDonnell on March 24.
If you actually watch the video you'll learn that HB10 is not about '"nullification," so let's not have any silly comments comparing Bob Marshall to John C Calhoun or some such.
HB10: Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 38.2-3430.1:1 as follows:
§ 38.2-3430.1:1. Health insurance coverage not required.
No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act.
The bottom line is that it's not the government's job to provide you with health insurance. And it sure can't force you to buy a policy. Get over it.
We're not going to repeal all of the horrendous Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Care bill through lawsuits alone. In the end we've got to elect true conservatives to both the Congress and White House. But perhaps we can get rid of some of it's more onerous regulations through lawsuits, and at the very least we can get this country talking about the Constitution once again. It is more than a schedule for holding elections, it does limit the power of the federal government, and there is a growing consensus on these matters.
Posted by Tom at April 10, 2010 12:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1562
Comments
So I am outright admitting I am not constitutional scholar, and I do not defend politicians who are equally, or more grossly neglient in Consitutional law than I am.
But I find one thing odd in the anti-Obamacare logic of "The Right", summed up in your quote:
"...not the government's job to provide you with health insurance. And it sure can't force you to buy a policy. Get over it."
But in Massachusetts, that is what two conservative icons did. Scott Brown voted for the plan, and Romney signed it. Romneycare requires citizens to buy health insurance or get fined. Period. Scott Brown was crowed over as the Tea Party supported rejection of health care. But he supported Romneycare that "forced" citizens in his home state to buy a policy, and Romney delightfully signed it. That is fact, get over it. But now, Obama does it and it is suddenly Armageddon, socialism, etc. On FOX News, "conservative" Romney said “We do insist that people buy insurance or pay their own way. And if they — if they don't buy insurance, they'll find that their taxes are higher.” And other reports state that Romneycare's individual tax penalties are even stiffer than those under Obamacare.
Stinks of hypocrisy to me...
Massachusetts health-care plan
Posted by: jason at April 13, 2010 4:50 PM



