Pelosi: Consitutional Authority "is not a serious question"

[Steerpike]

Glad to see your back posting. We've had some great discussions in the past, and I haven't seen you around in a while. So welcome back.

Hey, what's up...fun to be back. I see the boards are still a hotbed of ad homs Looking forward to some good discussions with the rational posters, though. Thanks for the welcome.

 

[DiamondDave]

Just a tip for the wing-nuts
This is not an entitlement program.It is fully funded by premiums, not taxes!

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Those with 'lesser means' are subsidized by the government.. I.E. by taxation... I.E. from other contributors....

It is EXACTLY an entitlement program

If people could (or wanted to) pay for it now, they would pay for it now

And if some people would end up paying more in their 'premiums' for the same product, that in itself if the epitome of unequal treatment... what next? $9 per gallon Milk for ones that make more than 75K a year, so that those who make 20K a year only pay $1 per gallon? That in itself is wealth redistribution... something that the government is not charged to do, nor should it be charged to do

 

[Ame®icano]

Just a tip for the wing-nuts
This is not an entitlement program.It is fully funded by premiums, not taxes!

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Those with 'lesser means' are subsidized by the government.. I.E. by taxation... I.E. from other contributors....

It is EXACTLY an entitlement program

If people could (or wanted to) pay for it now, they would pay for it now

And if some people would end up paying more in their 'premiums' for the same product, that in itself if the epitome of unequal treatment... what next? $9 per gallon Milk for ones that make more than 75K a year, so that those who make 20K a year only pay $1 per gallon? That in itself is wealth redistribution... something that the government is not charged to do, nor should it be charged to do

Exactly...

 

[Ame®icano]

It's the beginning of the third page and I still haven't got the answer to the question from the OP.

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

There are answers that state there is no authority. There are also calls for "general welfare clause", "necessary and proper clause" that are debunked, and there is "commerce clause" which we are still debating on.

Those who support this HC bill offered nothing but attacks, insults, deflection...

All I am asking is the answer to question: Where does the Constitution authorize the Congress to pass an individual health care mandate? Please give specific clause with attribution, I just want to know where it is.

 

[jillian]

You've been answered. The right exists in the general welfare and commerce clauses.

it's too well-settled to form the basis of any dispute the USSC would even grant cert to, IMO.

 

[Liability]

You've been answered. The right exists in the general welfare and commerce clauses.

it's too well-settled to form the basis of any dispute the USSC would even grant cert to, IMO.

There is no such thing as a governmental "right."

The alleged "authority" according to you and those who believe as you do comes from the Commerce Clause.

Of course the Commerce Clause provides no such authority. But, since it has been "interpreted" in a manifestly dishonest manner for a sufficiently long period of time, you do get to argue that it is now "well settled."

No.

It isn't.

It is very likely that you are right in the sense that the same malignant "interpretation" of the Commerce Clause will be trotted out as a justification yet again for the endless encroachments of our Federal Government over our lives. But that's not something that is "well settled." It is just a long-standing violation of the very purpose of our Constitution.

It is one of the reasons that it is a tragic error for those on the right to have allowed the Executive Branch to slide so far to the left. It is enormously difficult, now, to correct the improper rulings of the judicial system and increasingly likely that the leftards on the Bench will get cemented into place for years into the future.

 

[Liability]

Just a tip for the wing-nuts
This is not an entitlement program.It is fully funded by premiums, not taxes!

It is not even close to being fully funded. Your outright lies make the case against the shit you clammer for.

 

[Murf76]

A violation of the 4th?? I have never read any case law concerning the GW or CC clauses citing the 4th's UNreasonable seizure element. Sure the 4th deals with privacy issues, as it protects "people, not places", but....??

Here's the 4th...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Just because a precedent can be established for twisting our U.S. Constitution like a taffy pull at the county fair, doesn't take ANYTHING away from the meaning of the words. Not really. A tyrannical government which declares something to be "lawful" based on such rulings is still... a tyrannical government serving its own interests rather than that of the Constitution.

Medical records are PROPERTY. Now, whether one argues that a record is the property of the patient of the doctor, one thing it sure as hell is NOT is the property of the U.S. government.

Excerpt:

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution
Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales?

By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power "to regulate" interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."

(cont...)

Andrew Napolitano: Health-Care Reform and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Decisions like Wickard v. Filburn clearly stand in opposition to the intent of our founders. Realize... that under that decision, your backyard apple tree is subject to federal regulation should some yahoo in Washington decide to see it that way. And even though a decision like that lacks any semblance of common sense, it would still be based on "precedent".

There HAS to be a certain amount of common sense applied to law. Otherwise, we end up with a system of 'anything goes'. Language becomes gibberish when words are dissolved past meaning. Next thing we know, we're trying to decide what the meaning of "is" is.

The intent of our founders was clear. The writings of the age support their intent to LIMIT the powers of Congress to only those enumerated by the Constitution. And while I have no doubt that our current Congress will abuse the commerce clause or mangle the welfare clause in order to forward their own political machinations... they commit themselves to the actions of tyrants when they do... and so do the sheeple who support them.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
---James Madison

 

[Navy1960]

When people ask as to the merits of mandates as they apply constitutionally, on a personal level I welcome the constitutional fight that is looming over this issue so we can finally put to rest the FDR Courts decision that cast aside over 130 years of case law and the father of the constitution in favor of Hamiltion's view as it applied to the "Commerce clause".

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.


What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that if the "Commerce Clause" was as the FDR court viewed it and gave congress broad powers to legislate ANYTHING they felt like that promoted the "general welfare" then it would render ALL other rights in the constitution mute. If congress for example did like the Americans wearing a hairstyle, then as a matter or promoting the general welfare according to the logic presented under these mandate's in this new healthcare bill, it would be a matter of passing legislation that outlawed such hairstyles. Don't like free speech, simple it's not good for the general welfare, don't like freedom of the press, simple it's not good for the general welfare. Of course these mandates are unconstitutional and perhaps the reason why the Speaker would not answer the question is because she has little respect for it, and lacks a basic knowledge of it other than , " doesn't that have something to do with the oath i took? "

 

[Murf76]

Just a tip for the wing-nuts
This is not an entitlement program.It is fully funded by premiums, not taxes!

Grow up. Seriously.

Taxation, and the suspension thereof upon certain conditions, is the only way those schmucks can apply a penalty. Even Baucus admits that it's a tax.

The controversial tax that both Obama and Baucus would impose on people who do not buy health insurance appears to be a "direct tax" on persons that is unlawful under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution, which requires that "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their Numbers . .. ."

In addition, Art. 1, Sec. 9, says: "No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken ... ."

The only exception to the constitutional prohibition against unapportioned direct taxes is for the federal income tax, which was authorized by the 16th Amendment — but the direct tax on the uninsured is not an income tax.

Sen. Baucus claims that the tax on the uninsured is an "indirect" excise tax — like the federal gasoline tax — that does not have to be apportioned. But Sen. Baucus appears to be in error. An excise tax is a tax on a "thing" (such as a commodity or a license). That is why an excise tax is classified as "indirect."

[(cont...)
Investors.com - Is Obama's Tax On Health Care Constitutional?

In terms of funding.... who pays the "premium" for those citizens who can't afford it? Or are you among the one in four who actually believes the federal government has it's own money?

 

[Murf76]

It's the beginning of the third page and I still haven't got the answer to the question from the OP.

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

There are answers that state there is no authority. There are also calls for "general welfare clause", "necessary and proper clause" that are debunked, and there is "commerce clause" which we are still debating on.

Those who support this HC bill offered nothing but attacks, insults, deflection...

All I am asking is the answer to question: Where does the Constitution authorize the Congress to pass an individual health care mandate? Please give specific clause with attribution, I just want to know where it is.

Even if one argued that Congress has established a "regulation" upon the private insurance industry in its decision NOT to allow trade over state lines... there's still no enumerated power for the federal government to ENGAGE in the commerce of healthcare, "competing" with private industry.

Further, they can't utilize the commerce clause, citing that an individual mandate is necessary to commerce, and still deny that they are, themselves, engaging in commerce with a government option. They can't have it both ways, saying that it's "commerce" as it applies to the individual, but not when it applies to the government.

 

[Steerpike]

All I am asking is the answer to question: Where does the Constitution authorize the Congress to pass an individual health care mandate? Please give specific clause with attribution, I just want to know where it is.

Depends on whether you want the academic answer that presupposed the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution as understood at or around the founding, or whether you want the practical reality of how things are interpreted today.

If you want to look at it in a more literal sense, based on the Constitution as-written and understood for much of the first part of our history, then I think it is clear that the Congress has no such authority and that the Commerce Clause and General Welfare clause were never intended to even come close to allowing the Federal Government to do this sort of thing. It's clearly beyond the scope of their authority.

If you want to look at it from a more practical view, given the current realities of decades of case law, the Commerce Clause and General Welfare clause can be used to support much of what Congress does so long as they are acting in an area that "affects" interstate commerce. Regulating health care affects interstate commerce. Further, I have no doubt that people will argue that even wading in and providing coverage for some is an act that in and of itself affects interstate commerce. And that's true - the government action in this area in the sense of an insurance provider will certain have an impact on the industry, and the industry is involved in many areas of interstate commerce (and makes up a good-sized chunk of it in fact).

 

[Navy1960]

Americano, what you will get as an answer is an over-broad interpretation of the constitution as it relates to the commerce clause, or general welfare clause. There is NO specific clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to legislate healthcare matters over the citizens of the United States. In fact, the only group of Americans actually entitled to healthcare under the constitution are those that the Govt. hold in prison under the "cruel and unusual punishment clause" What many will cite is case law that only dates back to the 30's when you had a series of cases in support of Social Security that had over-ridden the previous 100 plus years of case law on the matter in favor of a very narrow view favored by Hamilton and not the father of the constitution Madison. As I stated in my earlier post, if congress has such broad sweeping power's under these clauses, then all OTHER rights granted by the constitution are rendered mute and no one can argue that that was the intent or is the purpose of the constitution. Whlle congress does have the power to legislate matters of interstate commerce, the DO NOT have the power to legislate commerce within the state itself per the constitution, however, revisionist law schools who have produced progressive legal scholars that have little knowledge of the constitution now hold and teach the Hamilton view of the constitution rather than the Madison view which should be taught. The constitution is an insturment that defines the powers of Govt. and it's clear that those powers are well defined and limited. So things such as mandates, public options, etc. are all matters for states to take up and not the Federal Govt. which has ZERO power under the constitution to do so. As i had said earlier, this bill and the pending bill for climate change should set up finally a USSC fight that will settle this matter once and for all. So as I have said on here many times, even should a healthcare or for that matter a climate change bill pass and be signed, if I were s supported I would not celebrate just yet as that wowuld just mark the beginning of what I'm sure is going to be a long series of court battles over them.

 

[lawbuff]

Congress has misused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses, period.

This is why we are over 13 TRILLION in debt, spend, spend and spend. No money left, raise the debt ceiling, no problem.

In am not saying every appropriation is a misuse, but...see above.

No place in Article 1, sec. 8 does it call for the creation of an AIR FORCE, just army, navy and militia.

Back then there were no airplanes, rarely even weather balloons. Experimental flight by heavier than air craft was over over 100 years away.

Sec. 8, clause 1:

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;

My bold is Constitutional authority, IMO, to create an Air Force, and even the Marines, although they are not mentioned, so every act of Congress not SPECIFICALLY spelled out is not necessarily a misuse. The same with the Coast Guard.

The Original 7 have to be interpreted to some extent, just as the Bill of (specific) Rights, namely the 1st 8 Amendments.

 

[Ame®icano]

I wouldn't use word misused, rather abused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses.

Under those clauses Congress has pushed all those entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Child labor laws, Agriculture adjustments, etc. After all that, question is: What those clauses do not authorize?

If the Congress is authorized to pass whatever they wish via the Commerce or General welfare clauses, literally with no limits beyond the Supreme Court overturning them, why does Section 8 of the Constitution (powers of the Congress) bother to enumerate specific powers? Basically, Article 1 Section 8 could've been one-liner with just Commerce clause in it.

 

[Ame®icano]

I was just reading about Reid's version of the bill where States will allegedly be able to "opt out" of a public option.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stepping deeper into the health-care debate, put his weight Thursday behind a proposal that would create a new government-run insurance plan while giving states the option not to participate.

Offer to Let States Opt Out of Health Plan Gains Support

This is just another trick to get the votes. Bill is giving States the option to "opt out" if they give up - what?

If anyone remember, it sounds pretty much the same as the law where the States can "opt out" of federal speed limit laws, only if they "opt out" of any federal money to keep up those federally built highways. Saying they can "opt out" when if they do, they suffer sever sanctions imposed by the Federal Government, is not any true choice to "opt out" at all.

 

[Ame®icano]

Congress has misused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses, period.

This is why we are over 13 TRILLION in debt, spend, spend and spend. No money left, raise the debt ceiling, no problem.

In am not saying every appropriation is a misuse, but...see above.

No place in Article 1, sec. 8 does it call for the creation of an AIR FORCE, just army, navy and militia.

Back then there were no airplanes, rarely even weather balloons. Experimental flight by heavier than air craft was over over 100 years away.

Sec. 8, clause 1:

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;

My bold is Constitutional authority, IMO, to create an Air Force, and even the Marines, although they are not mentioned, so every act of Congress not SPECIFICALLY spelled out is not necessarily a misuse. The same with the Coast Guard.

The Original 7 have to be interpreted to some extent, just as the Bill of (specific) Rights, namely the 1st 8 Amendments.

I don't get it. Original 7? Is that maybe the original 10... ?

 

[lawbuff]

I wouldn't use word misused, rather abused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses.

Under those clauses Congress has pushed all those entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Child labor laws, Agriculture adjustments, etc. After all that, question is: What those clauses do not authorize?

If the Congress is authorized to pass whatever they wish via the Commerce or General welfare clauses, literally with no limits beyond the Supreme Court overturning them, why does Section 8 of the Constitution (powers of the Congress) bother to enumerate specific powers? Basically, Article 1 Section 8 could've been one-liner with just Commerce clause in it.

For the conventions of 9 states to ratify the Constitution, there is no way they would have done it without at least some specific powers of Congress being laid out.

A "catch all" power as you suggest, that being the only one, would not have survived ratification, the founders knew this I would imagine.

 

[007]

Nancy Pelosi is a K Street WHORE..... that is acceptable commentary now... right? ...

 

[lawbuff]

The Original 7 have to be interpreted to some extent, just as the Bill of (specific) Rights, namely the 1st 8 Amendments.

I don't get it. Original 7? Is that maybe the original 10... ?

Original 7 as it is sometimes called, the Constitution of 1787, which contains Article 1 of the 7.

The Bill of Rights were 10 of the now 27 of the Amendments, submitted in 1789, declared in full force and effect in March 1791.

When the 1st Congress convened in NYC in 1789 they drafted, under of course the genius of Madison, Amendments to send to the states, originally 12 were sent, 10 were ratified.

The BOR in the National Archives in DC has all 12 listed, called Articles.

We back them up 2, the now 1st AM was actually proposed as the 3rd, the 2nd the 4th, and so on.

The 1st was not ratified at all, the 2nd was not ratified at that time, after finally done so many many decades later, became the 27th AM.

If you ever get a chance to tour DC since you are interested in the Constitution, you MUST tour the National Archives.

As you enter the Rotunda, the center case, the Declaration is to the left, the Original 7, middle, and the BOR to it's left.

As a side piece of information, there are about 25 known copies of the Dunlap broadside Declarations in existence, out of about 200 printed.

This year or late last there was a copy found in a British Museum, so the experts say, it was shown on TV, so that makes the extant copies at 26 now??

The feds copy in the Archives is badly faded, but you can make out Hancock's signature good.