Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Landrieu Declines to Say Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress--
CNSNEWS ^ | December 11, 2009 | Nicholas Ballasy

Posted on 12/11/2009 12:56:33 PM PST by yoe

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told CNSNews.com she would leave it up to the “constitutional lawyers” to explain exactly where Congress gets the constitutional authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, the central mandate in both the Senate and House health care bills.

Landrieu, in her second term as a U.S. senator, responded to a question from CNSNews.com at a press conference about the effect health care reform would have on small businesses. Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) joined Landrieu at the press conference.

CNSNews.com asked Landrieu: “You mentioned that there will be no employer mandate [in the Senate health care bill] but there is an individual mandate, and several members of Congress have said that an individual mandate is unconstitutional. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance?”

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

“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know -- government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility,” said Landrieu.

The health care bill that passed the House and the Senate bill (as currently written) both require that individuals purchase health insurance or face a penalty from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Landrieu defended the individual mandate in the Senate bill, saying that the burden of paying for health care reform should not fall “too heavily” on one group of people.

“So, while some people, and I occasionally will use the word mandate for or against, but it’s really a shared responsibility, so that the burden of this doesn’t fall too heavily on any one group,” she said.

In the 233-year history of the United States, the federal government has never mandated that individual Americans purchase any good or service.

In 1994, when Congress was considering President Clinton’s proposal for a national health care plan, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be “unprecedented,” adding that the government had “never required” Americans to purchase anything. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” CBO found.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States," said the CBO report.

"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."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered an amendment to the health care bill while it was under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee that would have expedited judicial review of the provision that mandates individuals top buy health insurance. Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that the amendment was not the proper jurisdiction of the committee and did not allow a direct vote on it. Hatch later told CNSNews.com that he believes the provision is unconstitutional.

Hatch told CNSNews.com that if the claim that the federal government has the constitutional authority to force American to buy health insurance were allowed to stand, "then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do."

CNSNews.com has asked a number of senators to point out specifically where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance.

For example, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) previously told CNSNews.com he is “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance.

On the other hand, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) told CNSNews.com that Congress has the authority to force individual American to buy health insurance becuse the Constitutions says to provided for the "health, welfare and the defense of the country."

“Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the -- protect the health, welfare of the country," said Burris. "That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.

The word "health" appears no where in the Constitution. Burris’ communications director later told CNSNews.com he was referring to the “general Welfare” clause in the Constitution.

However, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said the general welfare clause should not apply to health insurance.

“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.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were dismissive when asked where the Constitution authorized Congress to force individuals to buy health insurance.

“I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that," said Leahy.

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" said Pelosi.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: bogus; fraud; lies
Sen. Mary Landrieu is a real piece of work along with Harry Reid, ...why should any of us who do pay federal income taxes, pay any if Landrieu can get 300 million for her vote and others on both sides take money for their votes...seems our government has plenty of cash without our taxes. The American People....this is for the American people The SOB's don't give a hoot for the American People....we have begged them to trash this eight-thousand plus page illegal and unconstitutional pile of power grabbing gibberish which no one can or has read in its entirety.

Is there any way to fire these elitist crooks before the election? Can we sue them for incompetence or abuse of liberty and freedoms?

1 posted on 12/11/2009 12:56:34 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

Sen Hatch believes the commerce clause entitles the Congress to force the NCAA to a playoff in D1 football.


2 posted on 12/11/2009 12:59:43 PM PST by Perdogg (Sarah Palin-Jim DeMint 2012 - Liz Cheney for Sec of State - Duncan Hunter SecDef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Let me guess- if I challenege the constitutionality in court, they will tell me I have “no legal standing” to bring the case.

In other words- “just shut up and pay for it, boy.”


3 posted on 12/11/2009 1:00:41 PM PST by getitright (Are you hoping to change back yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

It’s obvious that the $300 million bought more than a vote to open debate from Landrieu. She was bought body and soul.


4 posted on 12/11/2009 1:00:46 PM PST by Sans-Culotte (Pray for Obama--Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Is there any way to fire these elitist crooks before the election? Can we sue them for incompetence or abuse of liberty and freedoms?

Sadly I think the 2010 elections are our only resort other than open rebellion to the tyrannical government that seeks to enslave us.

If nothing changes after 2010 then I fear all bets are off.

5 posted on 12/11/2009 1:01:42 PM PST by bayliving (DemocRATs are the PROBLEM period...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

It should be a requirement that EVERY piece of legislation must explicitly state what from what portion of the Constitution the legislation derives.


6 posted on 12/11/2009 1:02:04 PM PST by Terabitten (Vets wrote a blank check, payable to the Constitution, for an amount up to and including their life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Damn.
Our 'leaders' are weasels and defer their responsibilities to a bunch of lawyers... The biggest government program in history - and the esteemed Senator says, 'not my job to understand whether the United States Constitution allows it'...

7 posted on 12/11/2009 1:03:37 PM PST by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Sen. Mary Landrieu is a WHORE! Period Amen!


8 posted on 12/11/2009 1:06:58 PM PST by 70th Division (I love my country but fear my government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

I’m not a lawyer but I can tell her, NOWHERE DOES IT ALLOW FOR THAT.


9 posted on 12/11/2009 1:07:23 PM PST by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Symptomatic of someone who is not a patriot.

A patriot in my mind is one who places the country above oneself.

In that mode, a patriot would ALWAYS defer to the powers granted to the government by the Constitution, and not intrude upon those reserved to the states and citizens.

Cowards like Landrieu reveal their personal rather patriotic drives very easily when they answer in this manner.

By the way, I read somewhere that the qualifications to become a US Senator is simply that you offer an opinion. You do not have to display leadership or even be right. You can be wrong or outvoted 100% of the time and still be a US Senator.

That’s revealing in itself.


10 posted on 12/11/2009 1:08:11 PM PST by bestintxas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

He’s way off, but considering that a lot of them think that the Constitution allows the Govt. to take over the auto industry, banks, healthcare, I suppose they think, “Why not football”?


11 posted on 12/11/2009 1:08:55 PM PST by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

“It should be a requirement that EVERY piece of legislation must explicitly state what from what portion of the Constitution the legislation derives.”

And that should always be debated on the floor along with the reasons that legislation is felt needed.

Both should be required.


12 posted on 12/11/2009 1:09:34 PM PST by bestintxas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yoe

My dog is smarter than this bayou bitch....


13 posted on 12/11/2009 1:10:06 PM PST by clintonh8r (Oath Keeper and Manhattan Declaration signer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
You can be wrong or outvoted 100% of the time and still be a US Senator.

You can be wrong and overturned over fifty percent of the time and become a Supreme Court Justice, too.

The U.S. is in its death throes and I am regretting having children.

14 posted on 12/11/2009 1:10:40 PM PST by raybbr (If you try to kiss your son on the head while he's running you WILL get a fat lip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Then why is she in office? She should know this.


15 posted on 12/11/2009 1:11:14 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: getitright
Whatever gave you a crazy idea like the courts in this country are there to provide that justice be done for individual citizens? Don't you know that this is Obamanation now? The courts are there simply to ensure that the will of The Won is done.
16 posted on 12/11/2009 1:13:13 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yoe

I tell you what was amusing was watching the optimism on this website that a super majority would do anything except vote party lines. Sure, there will be some buying of votes, but realistically this was destined to pass the second the polls closed after the last election.

The best you can hope for is a Supreme Court with some guts, but I haven’t seen a gutsy ruling in my lifetime declaring such a major issue as unconstitutional.

Game over, insert token. Enjoy your socialized medicine. As you’ve seen with all major entitlement programs, there is no repealing them.


17 posted on 12/11/2009 1:14:02 PM PST by CSA Rebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

I’d bet a year’s salary that this fool has never read the Constitution.


18 posted on 12/11/2009 1:15:25 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government -- Thomas Payne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Correct me if I’m wrong, but...

aren’t all congresscritters sworn in to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States?

Therefore, isn’t it a DUTY to determine whether what they are doing IS Constitutional?


19 posted on 12/11/2009 1:16:09 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe
“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know -- government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility,” said Landrieu.

Man, this has to win a prize or something for the most meaningless gibberish ever uttered by a so-called U.S. Senator. "It's like, you know, uh, you know..." Landrieu sounds more like a Valley Girl than a Senator.

20 posted on 12/11/2009 1:16:44 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas; Terabitten

Before the hardcore darwinists took over harvard lawschool, it was common for anyone proposing a law to cite where, in MOSAIC LAW, it was justified to have such a law.

IE, they were always referring to a FIXED basis of law instead of an EVOLVING basis of law.


21 posted on 12/11/2009 1:18:15 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: machogirl
--considering that a lot of them think that the Constitution allows the Govt. to take over the auto industry, banks, healthcare, I suppose they think, "Why not football"? --

Turn the question around, and ask a Congressman to name one thing that the Feds cannot regulate. They won't be able to name a single thing.

22 posted on 12/11/2009 1:19:02 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

“Then why is she in office?”

When I lived in Louisiana, she got the vote only after a delay in the closure of voting precincts in New Orleans was allowed in order to get more Democrat votes bussed into the voting booths. Otherwise, Woody Jenkins would have won.

Think New Jersey politics like Torricelli/Lautenberg


23 posted on 12/11/2009 1:21:38 PM PST by bestintxas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Mark Levin is a Constitutional lawyer, isnt he?
let HIM answer that.


24 posted on 12/11/2009 1:21:46 PM PST by silverleaf (More folks being invited to the White House for Holiday parties than are being sent to Afghanistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

One brief paragraph from John Mills essay ON LIBERTY.

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”


25 posted on 12/11/2009 1:23:42 PM PST by 99tango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but...

aren’t all congresscritters sworn in to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States?

Therefore, isn’t it a DUTY to determine whether what they are doing IS Constitutional?”

Correct
Correct

Except that no one holds them accountable once they get the trappings of power.

Politicians regularly lie through their teeth while campaigning(aka Obama)


26 posted on 12/11/2009 1:24:17 PM PST by bestintxas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yoe

mary the lying wh0re commie.

LLS


27 posted on 12/11/2009 1:25:32 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 70th Division

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!

LLS


28 posted on 12/11/2009 1:26:07 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Valley Girls do not allow their a$$es to grow as big as a semi tractor trailer rig.

LLS

29 posted on 12/11/2009 1:28:09 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Well, here’s to our prayers that Palin will set a new trend in boldly telling the truth and sticking to principles.


30 posted on 12/11/2009 1:30:26 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

True.


31 posted on 12/11/2009 1:31:19 PM PST by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Hatch is so stupid he hasn’t figueure out hid head from the hole in his behind. Just a typical senator.


32 posted on 12/11/2009 1:33:53 PM PST by HiramQuick (work harder ... welfare recipients depend on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe
to explain exactly where Congress gets the constitutional authority to force Americans to buy health insurance,

If this monstrosity passes, I'd really like to see Americans boycott the provisions en masse.

33 posted on 12/11/2009 1:44:21 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Pork Eating CRUSADER - FUBO! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Just because she is a senator doesn’t mean she knows anything about the Constitution.


34 posted on 12/11/2009 3:53:04 PM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayliving
"Sadly I think the 2010 elections are our only resort other than open rebellion to the tyrannical government that seeks to enslave us."

Actually, no. In fact, the electoral process is now SO corrupt it does not provide ANY resort.

Here is our very last resort before rebellion...

STATE NULLIFICATION. STATES' RIGHTS guarantees from the 9th and 10th Amendments will allow us just to say NO! to the Federal government.

Although both Amendments, not to mention the "commerce clause" and the "welfare clause" have been so distorted and convoluted from USSC rulings over years, the original INTENT of both Amendments have been lost.

However, the original premise was clear in that the States and the Peoples still remain as the absolute authority, aside from the few "enumerated" powers of the Fedgov. Therefore:

STATE NULLIFICATION of any Fedgov mandate that oversteps it's enumerated powers is void.

This is our last best hope, not demonstrations/protests that the marxists in DC ignore.

Build upon your own State's rights. Make your Governor and Legislature listen. That will also be difficult, but much easier than trying to persuade DC.

35 posted on 12/12/2009 12:16:31 AM PST by A Navy Vet (An Oath Is Forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten; Neil E. Wright; Jeff Head
"It should be a requirement that EVERY piece of legislation must explicitly state what from what portion of the Constitution the legislation derives."

Your above has always been part of my equation to re-establish our Constitutional heritage.

My suggestions have included:
1. Congressional Term Limits. Probably impossible with the incumbent mentality and resources;
2. Reduced Congressional session time frames. The less they are in session, the less harm;
3. Your suggestion that all legislation must past a Constitutional muster by some non-partisan entity - very important;
4. All but military legislation have sunset clauses;
5. Further restrictions on Fedgov employees becoming lobbyists. Yes, I know, that could be considered an infringement on the 1st Amendment, but the FF's never envisioned nor wanted such a system.

I know the above won't happen, but if it did, think of how our system could change for the better.

Until then, think: STATE NULLIFICATION! Let DC stop their tax distribution to the States, while the States stop their forwarding of tax receipts. What else can DC do? Send armed forces to the States? Pfft! It won't happen in this day. We no longer live in the 1860's. Think about it!

36 posted on 12/12/2009 12:36:29 AM PST by A Navy Vet (An Oath Is Forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet

Another useful legislative requirement for Congress would be like one in some state constitutions: that each bill presented have a title that specifically identifies the subject matter, and a rule that one bill can only address a single topic. No more omnibus anything with Pelosi inserting special tax credits for her own companies at the last minute!!


37 posted on 12/12/2009 12:47:01 AM PST by browniexyz (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

It’s above her pay grade!


38 posted on 12/12/2009 12:48:35 AM PST by browniexyz (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Amen


39 posted on 12/12/2009 3:55:45 PM PST by bestintxas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson