Is the Healthcare Bill constitutional? This may well be the most important question ever asked in the United States and many of those States are asking it. The premise dictated by Congress is that they derive their authority to enact the Healthcare Bill through both the Supremacy Clause that states that Federal Law supersedes State law and the Commerce Clause that gives the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The argument in favor of the Supremacy Clause is a moot point if the law that Congress passed is found to be unconstitutional. Since the Healthcare Bill relies heavily on the funding accrued through a mandate that every American must now buy healthcare insurance, the obvious question is what actually constitutes commerce? The Congress has obviously mistaken their need to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance to fund their program with the constitutional authority to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance. Since the Healthcare Bill is an empty shell without that mandatory purchase, the Congress and the President are not likely to give this up easily.
So what is commerce? According to Merriam-Webster, commerce is: “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”. Franklin Roosevelt broadened the definition of commerce during the Great Depression to facilitate government control of food prices. For this FDR used the argument that even the production of food products for personal consumption could disrupt the interstate price of those commodities. His rationale speculated that if too many people began growing their own foods, then the national price of food would be adversely affected, causing further economic harm. Since the nation was in a State of economic emergency, people were willing to try anything to stop the bleeding and Roosevelt got his way.
FDR’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause allowed him broad powers and he used them to create a multitude of new agencies that began the process of seizing powers that clearly belonged to the individual States under the banner of aggressively attacking the Depression and putting people back to work. Of course, the left loves to argue that is was those measure that saved the nation from economic ruin even though the enlightened and educated know that the Depression didn’t end until World War II destroyed every manufacturing center in the world except those safely located in the United Stated and the carnage killed and wounded more than 600,000 previously unemployed Americans; Americans that would no longer add to the unemployment rolls no matter what Roosevelt did.
More than seventy years later, the U.S. Congress is still using that perverse interpretation of the Commerce Clause to broaden the power of the Federal government even further. Today, as in Roosevelt’s day, for something to be considered commerce, an action had to take place and someone would have to buy, build, sell or grow something before we could claim that commerce existed. Now Congress wants to go even further and Congressional Democrats are struggling to make the case that since not buying insurance could adversely affect the commerce of healthcare, it may be lawfully regulated by Congress through the commerce clause. It was a stretch of the imagination and a violation of the Constitution when FDR claimed Congress had the right to regulate the actions of private citizens because those actions “might” interfere with interstate commerce. The idea that Congress can now regulate the inactivity of private citizens because that inactivity will interfere with a level of commerce that didn’t exist until Congress passed a healthcare bill that required the unwilling involvement of all US citizens goes beyond unconstitutional and could very well be criminal.
Why do I say criminal? Well, let’s look at the crime of extortion. Again, the Merriam-Webster definition says that extortion is: “the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice”. Ok, what does it mean to extort? Merriam-Webster says that is: “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power”.
The Healthcare bill dictates (forces) all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance. Failure to purchase health insurance will result in a fine (obtain money) of up to 2/1/2% of that persons income. The Internal Revenue Service (an official) will be responsible for confirming that you have adequate insurance and will levy and collect fines if you don’t (intimidation). Why did they use the IRS and not the massive new agency that will direct healthcare benefits and expenses? Because the IRS is the only Federal agency that can collect fines without proof of guilt or due process; forcing the afflicted citizen to prove his innocence rather than the government having to prove your guilt; a must in every other area of law.
Well, what do you know! The penalties and collection of fines established by the healthcare bill fits the definition of extortion perfectly! After all, the President and Congressional Democrats were clear that this was not a tax or else the President would have broken his promise of not imposing a middle class tax increase. Even if they called it a tax, Congress only has the Constitutional authority to raise taxes to pay the bills of the Republic and to provide for the defense of the nation but those taxes must be uniform and a tax only collected from those that do not purchase health insurance is certainly not uniform.
As with many things, once this finds its way to court the question of intent is bound to arise. Some unwitting Democrats have already provided us with the answer to that. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says the bill is meant to correct a maldistribution of wealth….and you thought this was about health. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says it’s “more about diet than diabetes” indicating that they intend to use the bill to exert unconstitutional control over the general population. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) invoked a quote from Thomas Edison during a meeting of the rules committee that “there are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something”. He then added that “all the Republicans are want to talk about are the people” as if a duly elected representative of the United States Congress can act without the consent of the governed and still claim constitutional authority. Even worse was the moronic statement made by Representative Phil Hare (D-IL) who said “I’m not worried about the Constitution; I’m worried about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have healthcare”.
It looks like the intentions have been clearly established here. Max Baucus wants to play Robin Hood, Nancy Pelosi wants to pick your lunch for you and I’m not sure how that squares with Alcee Hastings equivalent of one of the ruling elite saying “let them eat cake” in response to the unpopularity of the legislation. Bringing up the rear we have Phil Hastings that never even heard of the Constitution even though he swore an oath to support and defend it. And these are the people that want us to believe they have the authority to demand you buy insurance or else?
No, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to demand that you purchase a private product of their choosing for your personal use, using your money to purchase it. I’ve heard the left wing spokesmen on radio and television trying to equate this mandate with auto insurance. Well, there is a big difference. The insurance requirement is only mandated for people that choose to purchase a car for use on public roads (an act of commerce). There are no insurance requirements for vehicles that are operated solely on private property and there is no mandate for people that do not own a car to have to purchase insurance to help drive the cost down for those that do. The auto insurance mandate is required by the individual States, not the Federal government and anyone that has bothered to read the Constitution knows that the States and the people retain all powers not specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution; including the right to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle within their respective States.
Paul
The argument in favor of the Supremacy Clause is a moot point if the law that Congress passed is found to be unconstitutional. Since the Healthcare Bill relies heavily on the funding accrued through a mandate that every American must now buy healthcare insurance, the obvious question is what actually constitutes commerce? The Congress has obviously mistaken their need to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance to fund their program with the constitutional authority to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance. Since the Healthcare Bill is an empty shell without that mandatory purchase, the Congress and the President are not likely to give this up easily.
So what is commerce? According to Merriam-Webster, commerce is: “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”. Franklin Roosevelt broadened the definition of commerce during the Great Depression to facilitate government control of food prices. For this FDR used the argument that even the production of food products for personal consumption could disrupt the interstate price of those commodities. His rationale speculated that if too many people began growing their own foods, then the national price of food would be adversely affected, causing further economic harm. Since the nation was in a State of economic emergency, people were willing to try anything to stop the bleeding and Roosevelt got his way.
FDR’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause allowed him broad powers and he used them to create a multitude of new agencies that began the process of seizing powers that clearly belonged to the individual States under the banner of aggressively attacking the Depression and putting people back to work. Of course, the left loves to argue that is was those measure that saved the nation from economic ruin even though the enlightened and educated know that the Depression didn’t end until World War II destroyed every manufacturing center in the world except those safely located in the United Stated and the carnage killed and wounded more than 600,000 previously unemployed Americans; Americans that would no longer add to the unemployment rolls no matter what Roosevelt did.
More than seventy years later, the U.S. Congress is still using that perverse interpretation of the Commerce Clause to broaden the power of the Federal government even further. Today, as in Roosevelt’s day, for something to be considered commerce, an action had to take place and someone would have to buy, build, sell or grow something before we could claim that commerce existed. Now Congress wants to go even further and Congressional Democrats are struggling to make the case that since not buying insurance could adversely affect the commerce of healthcare, it may be lawfully regulated by Congress through the commerce clause. It was a stretch of the imagination and a violation of the Constitution when FDR claimed Congress had the right to regulate the actions of private citizens because those actions “might” interfere with interstate commerce. The idea that Congress can now regulate the inactivity of private citizens because that inactivity will interfere with a level of commerce that didn’t exist until Congress passed a healthcare bill that required the unwilling involvement of all US citizens goes beyond unconstitutional and could very well be criminal.
Why do I say criminal? Well, let’s look at the crime of extortion. Again, the Merriam-Webster definition says that extortion is: “the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice”. Ok, what does it mean to extort? Merriam-Webster says that is: “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power”.
The Healthcare bill dictates (forces) all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance. Failure to purchase health insurance will result in a fine (obtain money) of up to 2/1/2% of that persons income. The Internal Revenue Service (an official) will be responsible for confirming that you have adequate insurance and will levy and collect fines if you don’t (intimidation). Why did they use the IRS and not the massive new agency that will direct healthcare benefits and expenses? Because the IRS is the only Federal agency that can collect fines without proof of guilt or due process; forcing the afflicted citizen to prove his innocence rather than the government having to prove your guilt; a must in every other area of law.
Well, what do you know! The penalties and collection of fines established by the healthcare bill fits the definition of extortion perfectly! After all, the President and Congressional Democrats were clear that this was not a tax or else the President would have broken his promise of not imposing a middle class tax increase. Even if they called it a tax, Congress only has the Constitutional authority to raise taxes to pay the bills of the Republic and to provide for the defense of the nation but those taxes must be uniform and a tax only collected from those that do not purchase health insurance is certainly not uniform.
As with many things, once this finds its way to court the question of intent is bound to arise. Some unwitting Democrats have already provided us with the answer to that. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says the bill is meant to correct a maldistribution of wealth….and you thought this was about health. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says it’s “more about diet than diabetes” indicating that they intend to use the bill to exert unconstitutional control over the general population. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) invoked a quote from Thomas Edison during a meeting of the rules committee that “there are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something”. He then added that “all the Republicans are want to talk about are the people” as if a duly elected representative of the United States Congress can act without the consent of the governed and still claim constitutional authority. Even worse was the moronic statement made by Representative Phil Hare (D-IL) who said “I’m not worried about the Constitution; I’m worried about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have healthcare”.
It looks like the intentions have been clearly established here. Max Baucus wants to play Robin Hood, Nancy Pelosi wants to pick your lunch for you and I’m not sure how that squares with Alcee Hastings equivalent of one of the ruling elite saying “let them eat cake” in response to the unpopularity of the legislation. Bringing up the rear we have Phil Hastings that never even heard of the Constitution even though he swore an oath to support and defend it. And these are the people that want us to believe they have the authority to demand you buy insurance or else?
No, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to demand that you purchase a private product of their choosing for your personal use, using your money to purchase it. I’ve heard the left wing spokesmen on radio and television trying to equate this mandate with auto insurance. Well, there is a big difference. The insurance requirement is only mandated for people that choose to purchase a car for use on public roads (an act of commerce). There are no insurance requirements for vehicles that are operated solely on private property and there is no mandate for people that do not own a car to have to purchase insurance to help drive the cost down for those that do. The auto insurance mandate is required by the individual States, not the Federal government and anyone that has bothered to read the Constitution knows that the States and the people retain all powers not specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution; including the right to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle within their respective States.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment