Log in or Sign up

"Health-Care Reform and the Constitution"

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Tiger10, Sep 17, 2009.

Page 1 of 2

Tiger10 Founding Member

Joined:

Jul 30, 2009

Messages:

365

Likes Received:

11

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

I think that reading it on the link might be easier.

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."
The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.
Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.
The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.
That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.
What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.
Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America" (Nelson, 2009).
Click to expand...

Im not going to give you my opinion, Id just rather you read the article.

Tiger10, Sep 17, 2009

#1
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

Tiger10 said: ↑

Im not going to give you my opinion, Id just rather you read the article.
Click to expand...

why would you not give your opinion? thats the whole point. we are not your slaves that go around reading what you ask us to. you have to give a reason to be interested.

martin, Sep 17, 2009

#2
Tiger10 Founding Member

Joined:

Jul 30, 2009

Messages:

365

Likes Received:

11

you have to give a reason to be interested.
Click to expand...

You dont need to do it for me; do it for your family.

But heres what I think. THe FOunding Fathers would be very disappointed in the way the Constitution has been butchered, the powers of congress tell congress what they can do. It doesnt say in there pass the patriot act or allow a national health care program. But what is being taught in law school is the double speak version; that says congress can do what ever it wants and that the powers of congress is just list but not limited too.

Also the federal gov. cant allow health care to be sold across state borders because that would significantly bring down the price, but instead they have to create a problem, interfere with the free market. And then come in and say they are the only ones that can save the day. If you give them the power its what they want; they can grow the central gov. and consolidate power and wealth.

Mind you, I dont like giving my opinion I think most of the articles stand alone better than with my .02 cents. But I think I have made a point to let people know what I think; just in those threads I dont get any replies so I think that that people dont care.

Tiger10, Sep 17, 2009

#3
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

Im starting to think, you just like to talk to yourself in threads.

LSUMASTERMIND, Sep 17, 2009

#4
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

The paragraph is your friend.

red55, Sep 17, 2009

#5
Swerved It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Joined:

Nov 24, 2003

Messages:

4,291

Likes Received:

1,503

martin said: ↑

why would you not give your opinion? thats the whole point. we are not your slaves that go around reading what you ask us to. you have to give a reason to be interested.
Click to expand...

[hijack]

Nor is he your slave to do what you say he has to do. You have a right to read or not read, just as he has a right to express or not express his opinion.. Just sayin, it works both ways.

[/end hijack]

Swerved, Sep 17, 2009

#6
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

Swerved said: ↑

[hijack]

Nor is he your slave to do what you say he has to do. You have a right to read or not read, just as he has a right to express or not express his opinion.. Just sayin, it works both ways.

[/end hijack]
Click to expand...

you dont need to state the obvious for me, i have a brain.

the guy doesnt get many responses. i was giving him advice, not implying that he doesnt have a right to do anything. obviously.

martin, Sep 17, 2009

#7
Swerved It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Joined:

Nov 24, 2003

Messages:

4,291

Likes Received:

1,503

martin said: ↑

you dont need to state the obvious for me, i have a brain.

the guy doesnt get many responses. i was giving him advice, not implying that he doesnt have a right to do anything. obviously.
Click to expand...

wow... defensive much? I thought here in FSA people had thick skins. Apparently I was mistaken.

Mellow out, man. I wasn't calling you a dumbass or anything. Just kind of pointing out the 'pot meet kettle' aspect of your statement. Maybe I should have put a big smiley face with flowers on the post so you wouldn't take it as an attack..

Swerved, Sep 17, 2009

#8
mctiger RIP, and thanks for the music Staff Member

Joined:

Feb 20, 2003

Messages:

26,979

Likes Received:

17,164

I think the point some are trying to get across to you, tiger10, is this. Linking to an article is cool as a means to reinforce your point. But avid posters want to read and debate what you think, not some anonymous article that can't respond to us. Posting your original opinions will get responses.

Thank you for your attention, and please be generous when the hat is passed.:yelwink2:

mctiger, Sep 17, 2009

#9
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

Swerved said: ↑

wow... defensive much?.
Click to expand...

this phrasing is odd, it doesnt make sense.

martin, Sep 17, 2009

#10

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 2

Share This Page