Yesterday, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) raised the constitutionality issue regarding Sen. Harry Reid’s version of ObamaCare in a last-ditch effort to derail it.
He raises an excellent point, but in reality he’s actually a Johnny-come-lately on this question. Ryan Leonard, a Republican candidate for state Attorney General in Oklahoma, has been raising this issue for some SIX MONTHS now.
“While this important (health care reform) battle will continue to be waged in Congress,” Leonard wrote in a letter published by Tulsa Today on December 2, “in my speeches across Oklahoma the past 6 months I have raised the very important issue – that seems to be lost on Congress – that nowhere in the United States Constitution does it provide the federal government the authority to require an individual to purchase health insurance, or be punished with a tax if he or she doesn’t.”
“When confronted several weeks ago about the ‘constitutionality’ of the pending health care proposals,” Leonard continued, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded ‘Are you serious?’ To dismiss such a legitimate, and fundamental, question that goes to the very heart of the debate is illustrative of the extent that liberal interests will go to achieve their ends of growing government.”
Glad to see there are still SOME conservatives out there who embrace the quaint Goldwateresque practice of not attempting “to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.”
What a shame Sen. Ensign and his fellow Republicans in the Senate hadn’t asked themselves “What would Barry Goldwater do?” BEFORE Harry Reid started buying off the votes of all those Democrat senators such as Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.
First Answer:
Article 1, 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 the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Madison’s defends the ‘elastic clause’ in Federalist 44:
Madison then argues at length for the Necessary and Proper Clause, noting that no part of the constitution had come under more attack. He states flatly that the clause is “invulnerable” and that without it the constitution would be a “dead letter.” He says that the Constitution might have listed either enumerated those necessary and proper powers or attempted to list those that were expressly not necessary and proper, but argues that either exercise would have been futile in that no list could ever fully take into account all of the nation’s present and future concerns.
He responds to critics who feared that the clause would allow the government to overstep its powers that the people would have the same redress to this as to any occasion on which the legislature abused its powers: the balance of the executive and legislative branches, and the potential to remove the offending legislators via the ballot box.
Second answer:
The Preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There you have it, explict in the Constitution: ‘necessary and proper’ and ‘to promote the general Welfare’
We need more guys like Ryan Leonard who will defend the constitution.
Pelosi and Reid will walk all over the Constitution if we let them!
Thank You Ryan Leonard!!!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Taxing and Spending Clause.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
“for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” in terms of ‘mandated health care’ and for the taxing you ask about ‘ the Power To lay and collect Taxes.’
There you have it. I have given you three examples where the Constitution gives EXPLICIT examples where this legislation is ‘Constitutional.’ While you may disagree with the legislation, it is certainly ‘Constitutional.’
The premise that anyone besides maybe Ron Paul adheres to the principal of a fundamental strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is completely hypocritical, let’s be honest in assessing who is doing the assessment and state that this is political propaganda for the masses (and a last ditch effort by Republicans) who know little of the Constitution or those that are we entrust in enacting the principals of the ‘founding brothers.’
Anybody who thinks our Founding Fathers would approve of this Legislation is an idiot and ignorant of our nation’s founding history. But in the spirit of the holidays, let me add that I mean that in a good, Christian way.
That’s funny Chuck, because the “Founding Fathers” were nuanced characters, rarely agreeing with one another about the role and size of government… but hey, you know because you called me an idiot… as usual, you are questioned with facts and you reply with 3rd grade name calling. I’m sure ‘you don’t have time for this’ (a common Muth cop-out.) But, it surely gets old watching you use the ethos of the ‘Founding Fathers,’ all because the general public is ignorant of the nuance of the ideologies of the Founders. You propagate your aspoused positions with justifications of myth and legend of the Founders, cherry picking evidence, and rarely addressing the varing views of the Founders.
Lastly, most of the ‘founders’ were diest, but hey, you already knew that… Happy Holidays.
Moreover, you asked if it was constitutional, and I pointed out : That I have given you three examples where the Constitution gives EXPLICIT examples where this legislation is ‘Constitutional.’ And noted that: while you may disagree with the legislation, it is certainly ‘Constitutional.’
I answered the question that was asked, which was ‘is it constitutional?’ The answer is yes it is.
You changed the subject screaming that I am an idiot, because the ‘founding fathers’ would have never supported this legislation. A point which is hypothetical, and can never be answered. A moot point used merely to change the topic of the conversation.
It’s constitiutional, period.
Name the Founding Fathers who would have voted for Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.
In fact, name just one.
And as for name calling, I’m sure you wouldn’t have objected if I had called you a genius. Unfortunately for you, that name didn’t fit.
Oh, and it’s NOT constitutional. Period. That doesn’t mean Congress won’t pass it, the President won’t sign it and the Supreme Court won’t uphold it. After all, they did it for McCain-Feingold. Which isn’t constitutional either.
Idiot.
Ben Franklin
Could you elaborate on why it is not constitutional? I have given my reason why I believe it to be constitutional, now it’s your turn. Merly stating it is not constitutional just isn’t convincing to me. Is there a legal reason beyond ‘Muth says so?’
Ben Franklin? Are you serious? The man who said, “Rather go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt”? The man who said, “The first mistake in public business is the going into it”? The man who said, “The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice”? The man who said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”? The man who said, “Where liberty is, there is my country”? That Ben Franklin?
No. “Muth says so” is good enough for me.
An indisputable truism in life is that you can rationalize just about anything….as you are attempting to do here by making the historical intent of the Founders appear to be what it clearly wasn’t. To think that any of the Founding Fathers would sanction Harry Reid’s health care bill is patently absurd.
But you just go right ahead pretending otherwise, Matt.
Yep. The same one who wanted to use the federal government to abolish slavery. Who felt it was the federal governments job to do what was ‘morally’ correct for the country. Yep. That Ben Franklin.
Oh, OK. Now I see that not only are we dealing with a Harry Reid “mini-me” here, but a mental midget as well.
You’re actually using Ben Franklin’s opposition to slavery as your reason for believing Ben Franklin would have supported this massive federal take-over of the health care industry?
My apologies. Calling you an idiot was way to generous. And an insult to idiots everywhere.
So it is ok for you to compare Ben Franklin’s quotes regarding the American Revolution to health care, but it is an utter impossibility to use Franklin’s support of the federal government ‘taking over’ and ‘abolishing’ a ‘privately held’ industry (slavery) for the ‘moral health of a nation’ as a comparison to government health care overhall? Its ok Chuck, I understand if you can’t make the connection… it’s tough to think… why not try a little ad homonym attack instead…
I will….as soon as you learn how to spell “ad hominem.”
Dolt.
I suppose this conversation is over, we are on to spelling and grammar check… typical.
On a second look Chuck you have convinced me though you resounding logic. A quick recap of your impenetrable logic is worthy of a second look:
Point 1. Stating that “I’m an idiot.”
Point 2. Reiteration of my status as an idiot, in like terms.
Point 3. Bloviating statement of Ben Franklin quotes.
Point 4. Stating that “I’m a mental midget” and “an insult to idiots”
Point 5. “It’s not constitutional because Muth says so”
Point 6. Spell check commentary, followed by stating that “I am a dolt.”
That is an impressive argument, the logos is impenetrable… I mean wow! It is truly amazing sight to see such profound thinking…. Thanks for the enlightened conversation…
You’re welcome.
Oh, and I think you meant “logic,” not “logos.” Although with idiots, you just never know.
(Comment removed by editor)
And what you have failed to recognize and understand is that while you enjoy the right to free speech, you have no such right to exercise it on my blog.