www.offmyfrontporch.com

November 2, 2009

Is National Health Care Constitutional

I’m glad to see this question being asked by a prominent person like Orin Hatch and I think the honest answer to this is NO forced national health care is not Constitutional. But whether a court will have the political guts to rule as such is a different matter.

Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare:

If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’ ( Maybe Congress should pass a law that everyone has to buy at least $10,000 worth of life insurance or buy a new car this year or buy a new HD television or a computer –where does this stuff stop? I think it stops at the question, Is this Constitutional? In this case I don’t think it is.)


Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform plan would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents of the United States to buy health insurance. President Obama has endorsed this provision.

Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

The Commerce Clause, found in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, says: “The Congress shall have power to … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Hatch said this constitutional language authorizes Congress to regulate some types of commercial “activity,” which is different from authorizing Congress to force an individual American to engage in a commercial activity he or she is not presently engaged in and–as a free person–does not want to engage in. He said that “not one” of his Democratic colleagues has given a coherent constitutional argument to explain where Congress would derive the authority to do the latter.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded.  “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch said on the CNSNews.com program “Online with Terry Jeffrey.”

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance–mandating that you have to buy health insurance–is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to do this.

“We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. ”Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly dismissed the issue without directly saying where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance. When CNSNews.com White House Correspondent Fred Lucas asked Gibbs to comment on the fact that some Republicans were questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, Gibbs said: “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of–I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.”

Hatch said that if Congress claimed the power to tell Americans what things they must buy there would be “no limit” to the power of the federal government over the lives of Americans.

CNS News.com

9 Comments »

  1. “it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

    It is funny Senator Hatch would mention this. He does not believe in federalism. Why? Well for one he is not supporting the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 which will restore the states rights to sue medical device makers. He wants to increase the size of the FDA and prevent people from suing. He wants to prevent people from suing medical device manufactures even when fraud or negligence has been committed.

    How do I now this? I am a consequence of the Reigel v. Medtronic ruling in 2008 which grants corporate immunity to a special section of the economy.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-179

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.540:

    My guess is this is perfectly fine for a conservative because it means they get to keep more of their money. I truly believe a conservative will walk the liberal side when it comes to money. A conservative believes in federalism when it meets their needs but loves big government when it meets their needs.

    http://robertsfight.wordpress.com/

    Comment by Mark Baird — November 6, 2009 @ 12:10 AM

  2. “Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

    Wait a minute I thought he believed in big government such as the FDA. He did tell us at a committee hearing that that FDA needs to be funded with more money and get bigger. He also said that only these “experts” could properly judge what was safe or not safe for American citizens. Is he flip flopping or is it his ego talking.

    http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_08_04/2009_08_04.html

    Comment by Mark Baird — November 6, 2009 @ 12:15 AM

  3. That’s for your visit Mike…debating what Orin Hatch wants or not is not the topic here. The interview and article is whether the health care bill is Constitutional or not and he questions it as do a lot of us. As a matter of fact a lot of us know it’s not Constitutional for the federal government to “make” US citizens buy health insurance. The federal gov’t has NO Constitutional authority at all to do that and that is the topic of this article.

    Comment by Mike — November 6, 2009 @ 9:16 AM

    • I understand this. But like religion many people use the constitution to serve their ego instead of in the service of truth. I believe Senator Hatch like many use the constitution in the service of their ego.

      The founding fathers understood this all to well which is why they gave us the institutions we have, including a federalist system.

      They also gave us a system of checks and balances in the constitution.

      For someone to talk about big government and the constitution and then are so willing to take away states rights is a person that I do not take seriously.

      If we want to talk about what the constitution means then let’s quote someone who is not using it to serve their ego.

      If you believe in the constitution then you must believe and have faith in the jury system. Senator Hatch does not trust people. This is clear. This makes him no different then liberals.

      Do you trust the common people? Do you trust the government experts with your health care? If you do not then why do you trust government experts for the safety of our drugs and medical devices, Mr. Hatch?

      Have we become a society of cynics driven by our egos and fed by other egos on cable news and radio rather then curious skeptics? Have we become a society of cynics that fear the great diversity of this world or skeptics that find this diversity something that strengthens all of us?

      Comment by Mark Baird — November 7, 2009 @ 10:00 AM

      • This has nothing to do with ego or what else Orin Hatch might think or not think or juries for that matter either. This has to do with the Constitutional authority the Congress has to force a national health care plan on US citizens of which they have no authority to do so. Orin Hatch just happened to be the one I chose to post in the video, I could have found several others, i.e. Ron Paul, Nathan Deal of Georgia, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and others. The fact remains Congress doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to pass such legislation…..none…zip.

        Comment by Mike — November 7, 2009 @ 4:08 PM

        • I agree with totally. This should be left to the states. The Federal Goverenment should provide the tools to assist the states.

          Comment by Mark Baird — November 9, 2009 @ 10:28 AM

  4. Mark,
    Again, thanks for your visit and comment. No one disagrees that health care is an abomination and needs fixing. This is not the way to do it, and all conservatives don’t believe in big government, quite the contrary. A true conservative is a constitutionalist like Ron Paul who believes in a very limited role of government. We do however, need tort reform and proper regulation of the greed of the industry. No one would object to that, but the more government interaction the worse things will become. Health care in this country would become GM…government motors, who is back at the money table wanting more.

    Comment by Steve Hilton — November 6, 2009 @ 12:13 PM

    • “We do however, need tort reform and proper regulation of the greed of the industry”

      You are assuming that state tort laws are the problem which I have seen no concise evidence that it is.

      Do we grab a hold of this “tort reform” thing because it has a liberal label on it as my ego sometimes reacts when I see the “conservative” label?

      If we trust people to participate in the free markets and democracy why is that they can not be trusted on juries? Something smells of this argument for tort reform.

      Could it be that many judges do not allow juries to be told of their right of nullification?

      If 85% of the people believe in some kind of tort reform then why is it that they not perform their proper duty while on juries? Is it only the other 15% that sit on juries and they are all idiots incapable of judging complex cases?

      Government is the realm of legality, society is the realm of conscience. The approach to truth is a communal process, no single individual can find it alone and impose it on others. (This is the beauty of our system of government.) Laws by themselves, the constitution by itself, cannot bring justice.

      Truth is discovered and justice is something you feel. All of the neat tidy logic and reason do not make for the truth, let alone justice. Truth can not be found in doctrines, ideologies, sets of rules, or stories, Each one of those is made up of thought.

      Be careful what you ask for. Be careful when you begin to attack one of the core principles that our founding fathers gave us, the jury system.

      Comment by Mark Baird — November 7, 2009 @ 10:14 AM

      • Good start Mark, but there is a flaw in your analysis. I said reform, not repeal. Everyone should have their day in court, but the problem is not the juries, nor is it idiots capable of judging it. The problem is not people, it’s the judges and lawyers gone wild. You are wrong in your synopsis of laws not bringing justice, but rather the opinions of the lawyers and justices have soured the justice system. The Constitution was made by thought, it is a living, breathing and beautiful document that allows for growth. What has happened is what has happened to man from the Garden of Eden. Man wants to place his opinion upon the rules and call it justice. The Constitution should be a guideline, it should be what the law is measured to, not how opinion changes it. All I ask is that the rules of the Constitution be respected. Our Founders understood that when we grew this government, and we let anyone other than the common man rule by it, we were in dire consequence. I am careful what I ask for, and that’s the return to Constitutionality. You are right, the jury system may not be perfect, but it is the most purest of justice when you’re judged by the people, rather than the judge or lawyer. You have correctly stated that society is the realm of conscience, and that’s what conservatives want…back to the rule of conscience that the Constitution authorizes…not the liberal views that it needs to be updated and opinionated. From the inception of this country, the founders saw the impact of Greed of the King, uncontrollable prosecution of the subjects, and they sought freedom from it. They created the rules to stop it from happening here, and it’s been headed right back to imperialism ever since, because everyone wants “change” I advocate, Mike advocates, and most all conservatives advocate a return to the simple concepts of the founders…the Constitution and that’s it…

        Comment by Steve Hilton — November 9, 2009 @ 11:47 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Blog at WordPress.com.