Late last night I came across this post by a leftie blogger. It was a response to an interview of Michele Bachmann by Sean Hannity. [Video embedded below.] Bachmann made the point that Congress has no constitutional authority to take over health care.
It is not within our power as members of Congress, it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care. Nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive.
It sounded good to me. But, that’s the quote the blogger, Ian Millhiser, took issue with. Here’s part of his argument:
Bachmann, however, is wrong about both the contents of the health care plan and the requirements of the Constitution. There is nothing in any of the health care bills under consideration which resembles a “national takeover of health care.” Conservatives like to use this language when referring to the public health option. Like other insurers, the public option would collect premiums from people who choose to buy into it, and then spend those premiums to insure these participants.
Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.” Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the “general welfare.”
He went on to call Bachmann’s understanding of the Constitution “radical” while citing examples of how prior unconstitutional actions of the federal government [in my opinion] sets a precedent for the Constutionality of the democrats’ plans for health care reform.
It was quite late when I read it, and I was tired or I would have posted a reply.
The left constantly uses the “two wrongs make a right” rationale when it comes to the Constitutionality of anything they want to impose on us. They see the General Welfare clause as a mandate for redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive.
I planned to research the question of whether national health care is Constitutional, but then I found that Julia Shaw at Heritage did the work for me. And a fine job she did!
The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the 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.” This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.
During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” But James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress. If the “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn’t it be redundant to list them?
In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.
Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress. Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.
In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution.This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.
Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.
Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce. James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market.
In case proponents of government healthcare latch on to another clause, the three clauses above and rest of Constitution are explained in depth in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution .
May I suggest following the links provided by Heritage in the excerpt if you have a desire to learn more about the Constitution. The fact that politicians ignore the document, or twist its meaning, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t educate ourselves as to what the Founders of our republic intended. It seems to me that Constitutional scholars are simply those who spend years studying how to twist this fine document into something it was never meant to be. It is not a tool to be used for one group of people to rob another group of people of their property and services.
But hey, what do I know? I’ve only read the document.
I’d also like to add that the Heritage Foundation does a lot of great work to preserve our - well - American heritage. If you have the means, please consider making a donation to this fine organization so they can continue in their efforts to spread a message of liberty and freedom here in these United States. [No, I am not affiliated with Heritage.]
[...] See the rest here: Heritage Answers the Question ‘Is National Health Care Constitutional?’ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution. This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.”
In our system, the poor die. I am a cancer survivor, but only because my doctors treated me for no charge. If I had had other physicians, I would have died.
What more proof is needed that national insurance is necessary than the pathetic mess our health system is in? We have the worst system of any major country, and quite a few minor countries have systems that are superior. Those who believe otherwise are either ignorant, heartless, or both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Christopher, I don’t think you understand the amount of money very powerful people would lose if they were to let national healthcare benifit a large majority of America. You just don’t seem to get the republican agenda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christopher, you don’t realize that the reason you survived is because America has the best cancer survival rates in the world, and it’s because we DON’T have a health care system. If we do get one, your wait times for surgeries would increase ten-fold, and your taxes would increase, so you would STILL BE PAYING FOR IT. In addition to this, the article is about how UN-CONSTITUTIONAL national health care is. The Constitution was set up by some of the greatest Americans ever. We as Americans have come to believe we’re entitled to everything when that’s simply not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Heritage contradicts itself then:
“Perplexed, Indiana on August 5th, 2010 at 2:12pm said:
I don’t understand. It was the Heritage Foundation that first proposed the “individual mandate” in its report entitled, “Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System,” dated July 20, 1990 (Backgrounder #777). If you doubt me, you can read this report on your own website at the following link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1990/07/Using-Tax-Credits-to-Create-an-Affordable-Health-System.
My favorite excerpt from this report: “The second central element in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law, every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family’s health needs, rather than employers, who are not.”
-Perplexed in Indiana”
Found at:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/03/obamacare-vs-limited-government/
But the argument is erroneous.
I think we can all agree the healthcare system is broken. This plan does nothing to address the runaway costs of healthcare, other than to create a better bargaining position during contract negotiation (largest insurance company gets the best rates). It doesn’t address the HUGE price/cost differences from payer to payer and provider to provider. It doesn’t try to eliminate the costly paperwork (credentialing for each payer, for instance), it doesn’t do many things.
But it is the first possibly viable and concrete plan put forth and , god forbid, forced into existence. If we cannot put forth a better and constitutional plan, we had best start the gears to make THIS plan legal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0