Congress to the People: Don’t Question Our Authority

By Bob Ellis on February 5th, 2010

For several months, CNS News has been doing the yeoman’s work (the work the “mainstream” media won’t do) of challenging our representatives on Capitol Hill about the constitutionality of socialized health care.  Their efforts have revealed some pretty interesting, and pretty pathetic, responses.

In the history of the United States, Congress has never forced individual Americans to buy any good or service. That would change if the health care bills approved by either the House or Senate ever became law. Each would require individuals to buy a health insurance plan approved by the government.

Since Congress started debating these bills, CNSNews.com has been asking members of Congress: Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to force individuals to buy health insurance? The legislators have given a variety of answers. Some could give no answer at all.

They’ve put together a video (below) of some of those responses that frankly, if a seventh grader tried to give on a test, would earn them a resounding flunking grade.

Some of the answers from people who darn well should know better (that there is absolutely NO authority for the federal government to take over health care, or force someone to buy health insurance:

Leahy: “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Casey: “Well, I don’t know if there’s a specific constitutional provision.

Sanders: “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (He’s right; they both come from the same place–somewhere OUTSIDE the Constitution)

Conrad: “No, but I’ll refer you to the legal counsel for the Senate and they’re the ones that lead there as the full legal basis for the individual mandate–and I assume it’s in the Commerce clause.”

Landrieu: “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.

It’s obvious these people are far too incompetent to do the job of upholding the U.S. Constitution and of representing the people of the United States.

And they must be replaced as soon as possible.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • The response that I most object to is the claim that since we have other unconstitutional programs there is no reason to question the constitutionality of yet another. This is an ad populum argument that is fallacious and intended to indict as heartless anyone that questions their authority.

    It is also falacious by the fact that the programs cited, Social Security, Medicare, etc., are basically Ponzi schemes that are doomed to fail for lack of funding.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr. theo

    What most people don't understand is that in another 50 years and past that, is that health advances will mean our society will have a massive, huge elderly preponderance. What we are paying for these social programs now will seem like chump change. It is an exponential Ponzi scheme the likes of which we don't even comprehend what the costs will be.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Well if you are making the argument that the Federal government only has the powers given it in the original Constitution, then where did the government get the power to pass the 19th Amendment forcing all states to give women the right to vote. The specific right for women to vote wasn't mentioned in the original Constitution. Was that some of this central government Marxism?

    Or are you saying it should be a right reserved for the states?
  • I'm not making the argument that the federal government only has the powers granted to it by the original Constitution, and I'm pretty sure no one else is, either. Our constitution was created with the amendment apparatus so that we could change it as need be.

    However, there is STILL no amendment to this day that authorizes (a) wealth redistribution, (b), government charity, (c) a government health care program, or (d) the authority to force American citizens to purchase a product or service.

    As contrary as it would be to the American spirit and the American way, a person or group of people could attempt to make the case for a constitutional amendment authorizing any or all of these things. That would be the right way to implement Marxism in America--through the amendment process, NOT by ignoring the constitutional limitations on the federal government.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob

    So you are including the Bill of Rights and the Amendments as ' the Constittution'. Ok, makes more sense and makes your point true. When I hear the word 'Constitution' I think only of the original adopted in 1787. Just part of having an obssessive-compulsive brain I guess.;-) Also my government teachers ground that into our heads.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »