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.
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.
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.
“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
Mark Levin is a Constitutional lawyer, isnt he?
let HIM answer that.
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.”
“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)
mary the lying wh0re commie.
LLS
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!
LLS
LLS
Well, here’s to our prayers that Palin will set a new trend in boldly telling the truth and sticking to principles.
True.
Hatch is so stupid he hasn’t figueure out hid head from the hole in his behind. Just a typical senator.
If this monstrosity passes, I'd really like to see Americans boycott the provisions en masse.
Just because she is a senator doesn’t mean she knows anything about the Constitution.
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...
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:
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.
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!
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!!
It’s above her pay grade!
Amen
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.