Democrats Evading Constitutionality Questions on Mandates

  

104117 comments so far (is that a lot?)http://www.parcbench.com/2009/11/20/democrats-evading-constitutionality-questions-on-mandates/Democrats+Evading+Constitutionality+Questions+on+Mandates2009-11-20+15%3A00%3A57Nick+Rizzuto

Written by Nick RizzutocloseAuthor: Nick Rizzuto Name: Nick Rizzuto
Email: nicholas.rizzuto@gmail.com
Site: http://www.conservativepunk.com
About: Political Editor of Parcbench and producer of The Wilkow Majority on SIRIUS XM Radio.See Authors Posts (16) on November 20, 2009

The question of the constitutionality of health insurance mandates has turned out to be a slippery one for supporters of the current healthcare reform bill. The Federal Government is undoubtedly wading into uncharted waters by requiring, under threat of fine and imprisonment, that individual Americans purchase a service. At town hall meetings across the country, Democratic defenders of insurance mandates have almost universally followed the same script when asked about their constitutional authority to enact such a law. The script is one that evades the question, or at best offers a weak justification for this expansion of federal power.

First supporters of the mandate will turn the question back on the questioner, asking them that if they believe that healthcare reform is unconstitutional, do they also believe that Medicare is as well. The implication, if the questioner remains consistent in his logic, is that they must want the elderly and infirm to be thrown off of these programs and into destitution. This attitude was perfectly illustrated by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia who asked of a petitioner, “I take by your question that you would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid?” While this might be an acceptable tactic if employed by a college debate club, it seems to be somewhat tacky when an elected official meets a legitimate query into the extent of their power by casting dispersions upon the constituent who had the audacity to ask about it.

Next, Democrats will avoid the constitution altogether by justifying mandates with other federal programs. They will point to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and note that these programs are not specifically mentioned by the constitution. While this is true, none of these programs contain anything close to the Gordian knot of bureaucracy, regulation, and mandates that the healthcare reform bill does. Besides this, pointing to previous programs that the government has enacted, many of which are now bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, does not appear to be a winning tactic.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska took evasion to a new level, claiming that he couldn’t answer the question because he’s “not a constitutional scholar”.

Senator Daniel Akaka gave one of the few honest answers when confronted with the question, admitting fully that he wasn’t aware of the Constitution giving any such authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Those legislators who have attempted to take on the question have usually failed to do so convincingly. Aside from the time tested general welfare clause argument, which at this point might as well read the blank check clause, legislators have offered a myriad of weak and sometimes even bizarre answers.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island explained that the constitutionality of mandates was settled because it was similar to forcing individuals to sign up for the draft. Of course, he hedged his statement by saying that he needed to look into the “specific sections” of the Constitution.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont justified mandates by claiming that speed limits on highways were not explicitly called for in the Constitution either.

Senator Rolland Burris offered what is likely the most creative answer to the constitutional question. When asked, Mr. Burris cited the section of the Constitution which authorized congress “to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” Of course the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing. Scrambling to control the damage, his staff insisted that Mr. Burris really meant to cite the preamble to the Constitution. This spin is just as bad as the original error, as it has been established that the preamble to the constitution is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government.

Perhaps the most egregious evasion of the question came from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. When confronted with the question, Mrs. Pelosi responded, “Are you serious?” as if the question of constitutionality itself so absurd that it should be met with little more than disbelief and dismissal.

The reason for Democrats insistence on evading this important question is simple; they can’t adequately answer it. The power for the Federal Government to mandate that individuals purchase any good or service simply does not appear in the US Constitution. If passed through the Senate you can rest assured that this bill will be challenged. Only by the Supreme Court reading new powers into our founding document will the healthcare reform bill be allowed to stand.

The question of constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill that just passed through the house is a serious one, as some of its provisions hand the federal government power that it has never before had. The systematic dismissal and evasion of these questions by its defenders shows either disdain for the constitution or ignorance of it. While conservative protesters rallied to the steps of the capital just days before the bill was passed through the house, those protest might actually end at the steps of the Supreme Court.

—

Nick Rizzuto is the Political Editor of Parcbench.com and the producer of The Wilkow Majority on SIRIUS XM Radio. Thanks to CNS News for some great reporting on this issue.

Related Articles

Cordoba Intolerant: The 9-11 Mosque

The Swamp Thing Lives: Charlie Rangel and the Reality of Capitol Hill

Obama’s Appointment of Dr. Death

Is The Tea Party Over?

Obama’s Attack on America’s Students