Skip to comments.Feinstein 'Assumes' Commerce Clause Gives Congress Unlimited Authority to Mandate Health Insurance
Posted on 12/23/2009 1:36:25 PM PST by IbJensen
(CNSNews.com) Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
The health care bills in both the House and Senate require that every American purchase a health insurance policy. At the Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Feinstein: Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health insurance mandate?
Feinstein said: Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Thats how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.
CNSNews.com followed up by asking Sen. Feinstein whether this broad power had any limits: If theres a health insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority? Is there something that cant be mandated?
Feinstein responded: My own view is that there is not, within health insurance.
The Commerce clause is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It states the numerous powers authorized to Congress, including the power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian tribes.
The Senate version of health reform imposes an historic mandate on all Americans, requiring them to have government-approved health insurance, either through an employer or individually. The mandate also can penalize people with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year if they do not have a health insurance policy.
The bill, which looks certain to pass the Senate sometime on Christmas Eve, is unpopular with the public, garnering the support of barely 40 percent of Americans, according to recent national polls. Those numbers led Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to accuse Congress of flipping the bird to the American people.
This is a bad bill, it is bad, certainly for individuals and enough is enough, Steele said in a conference call on Monday. I am tired of Congress thumbing its nose and flipping a bird to the American people. Im tired of this Congress thinking it knows better than me and my family how to provide for our health care now and in the future. Im tired of this Congress not listening to me and to the American people to all of us.
In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.
The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States, the CBO analysis said. 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.
Really? So I don't have to pay Social Security taxes? I don't have to pay medicare taxes? All this time I thought I was being forced to buy gubmint run retirement insurance and gubmint run health insurance. I guess I'll stop paying those taxes then!
“The mandate also can penalize people with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year if they do not have a health insurance policy.”
So they’re idea is to tax people who do nothing, huh?
How about taxing those who don’t go out and get a job??
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
I ‘assume’ Feinstein is a parasite.
If this be treason make the most of it!
I believe in taking decent care of the poor and weak- but these people are Communists in “liberal” clothing. imho
I am a private citizen. They cannot use the interstate commerce clause to force me to purchase an insurance policy against my will.
I’ll see them in court or in hell. I refuse to give up my Liberty to usurpers!
You know what, Di-Fi, when you make an assumption, you make an a$$ out of you and Umption...now why you takling like that about Umption?
So, the libs change it to be a tax on individuals instead.
I would call this plausible deniability, except it’s so implausible on it’s face that it’s more like cognitive dissonance than anything else. If Feinstein dripped with any more contemptuous arrogance, the acid would eat the floor out from underneath her and she’d fall through the hole.
The commerce clause has been perverted to pass a lot of BAD legislation, overlooking the rest of the Constitution.
The elephant in the room is social security and medicare. Isn't that a "public option" retirement plan we are forced to buy? How about Medicare? Isn't that a "public option" health plan for seniors we are forced to buy? However they justified those (commerce clause?) will be how they justify this.
Let’s just hope the jack booted dems don’t buy off, extort or threaten said judges. We are fast evolving into a 3rd world dictatorship.
Good idea. You should stop paying.
How ‘bout us FReepers filing a class action lawsuit?
Yep, and if you ask a judge what an "individual" is, he'll hit you with a contempt citation for frivolity as his answer.
Exactly, we lost this fight somewhere around 1934.
They made their laws, now let them enforce them.
Refuse to pay the fines, if any are assessed. Go to jail. Then appeal the sentence based on the Constitutionality of the law which you consider to be unjust.
Murderers have been turned loose on flimsier interpretations of the law and Constitution.
If ten thousand, nay, ten times ten thousand made such an appeal to the law, could they be long ignored?
And that is what we want, to force the supposed elected officials to STOP IGNORING US.
They are supposed to represent US, not George Soros International, or the Wahhabist Islamic jihadists, or the Peoples’ Republic of China.
Have you ever been forced by government fiat to buy a product from a private business?
Yes there will!
This will be the most important lawsuit in at least 100 years, because its meaning will go well beyond health care. If the Supreme Court sides with Congress, the Pandora's box is wide open. We will face unlimited governmental control over our lives.
This will no longer be the land of the free.
Yes. Car insurance. Honestly, I'd rather be required to buy something from the private sector than be forced to buy "public options" like social security and medicare.
Feinstein does not determine what is Constitutional, therefor her ‘opinion’ is just that.
Well, it’s time to draw the line. I wasn’t here in Roosevelt’s day and I was rather preoccupied with fighting the communists in Johnson’s time, but I’m here now and fully engaged today.
And I say not only no, but HELL NO to this tyranny!!
Don’t know exactly what we can do short of rebellion, but we’ll figure out something. In the meantime, I refuse to buy it and I refuse to vote for liberals or RINOS!!
JUST VOTE THEM OUT!!
FUBO!! Same goes for all Democrats and any Republican who refuses to abide by his oath to support and defend the constitution, so help me God!!
But only if you own or drive a car. Same with Social Security or Medicare, only if you work. What makes ObamaCare different is that you are being forced to buy health insurance just because you happen to be born a citizen of the United States.
Communists all, they extract from the Constitution what they will that suits their agenda. That DiChiFi thinks health is just another “commerce” item speaks volumes of how they make it up as they go along.. and the opposing party is too weak to stop them because they are led by dolts and idiots.
God save this nation,, if he will.
Merry Christmas, CONgre$$.
Those many that can discern corruption for themselves can’t wait for next November.
Socialist State governments can go overboard too.
JUST VOTE THEM OUT!!
That's how I see it. I don't see how on earth you deem this outside their scope of power while retaining social security and medicare. And we know they aren't going away. One of these days I have to visit FDRs grave so I can spit on it.
You know, I was thinking about the various arguments advanced by the LibTards for their various robbing hood schemes to redistribute wealth and set up a permanent power base of dependent Americans who can be relied upon to vote for the authors of their free health care, free housing, free education, free money, etc.
One of the arguments is that the constitution has broad language about “providing for the general welfare”. Of course, there are clear originalist interpretations that that clause is not meant to give the 535 thieves in Washington or the one in the White house free reign to carry out their plans for lifetime job security.
But there is a simpler argument that, even a liberal could understand (since they obviously can’t understand Madison, Jefferson or Hamilton). If “the general welfare” is to be understood to mean anything that would promote general welfare, the concept is so elastic that it is limitless, encompassing even the most grandiose schemes. After all, if the “rich” could be taxed to support everyone else, by simple math, you are promoting the “general welfare”. The rich, being in the minority, the result is the majority of people are better off if the rich are paying for everything. On average, the whole society is better off and presto! you’ve promoted the general welfare.
Now what this means is that, as Rush likes to say: why not a minimum wage of $100 an hour or $1,000? Or why not provid a car or a house for everyone? Why not the latest electronics and so on? After all, if the rich would pay for everyone else to have these things, most of society would be doing a lot better.
Simply put, it is an ad absurdum argument. One can see that the same logic that supports the Obamacare monstrosity can be made to support anything and everything. If that were true, then the clause is nonsense. Ergo, that cannot be the correct reading and Obamacare has no constitutional basis in the general welfare clause.
Not a good example. You aren’t forced to buy car insurance because you aren’t — legally — forced to drive a car, and, in any case, it’s not the Fedgov that’s doing the “forcing”.
Just make it 500 to 1500 a day. Screw it. I ain't payin that one neither.
We are not required to buy car insurance here in the Live Free or Die state but I can tell you that if you own anything, like a house, you would be pretty stupid not have car insurance....it is kind of a capitalistic like approach....
No more Senate or Congressional hearings; it's time for the people's court!
She’s a cockroach.
No, the gov't taxes me and buys the product for me.
We lost our freedom.
Dianne Feinstein, once again, has taken defining steps, to prove to one and all, she is a dumb-ass.
I’m praying for the health of the correct handful of Supreme Court Justices.....One more goes and Zero’s got the trifecta.
The assumption = fail.
We shall soon find out.
You only have to do that if you are dumb enough to work to support yourself and your family /s
Would be very interested to hear what the Founding Fathers thought the purpose of the commerce clause was.
Well....maybe we could KILL medicare and Soc Sec! (I know....wishing...wishing...wishing.)
Taxes are neither goods nor services. Nice try though
They need to be dragged into the streets in chains. Will Christmas Eve, 2009 be the first shot fired in the New Revolution? Are there any real Americans left?
Car insurance is strictly between you and your state of residence. The states have many powers not in the Constitution (in fact all powers NOT mentioned therein). The FedGov does not. The FEDERAL mandate is unconstitutional.
Insurance is only regulated under the commerce clause if it is sold in multiple states. Since we are not allowed the option of shopping for better rates in other states because of laws to that effect, how can the purchase of insurance become an interstate commerce regulation?
If I could live in Missouri and buy my insurance in Wyoming, that would be interstate commerce.
But since I am prohibited by law from making that shopping comparison/purchase there is nothing interstate about my policy. The only interstate commerce is because the company I purchase insurance from is also licensed to sell in other states, but rates differ because of individual state regulations and demographics.
At least that is my take. Commerce clause is not a valid assumption of authority. Unconstitutional as hell.
Won't that require some sort of "database"?
Not only that, but to my knowledge NO state in the Union mandates that you buy car insurance for yourself - they only mandate liability insurance.
Or perhaps it’ll be checked the first time a person requires any healthcare service. It’s ironic (in the sane universe) that citizens will have this imposed upon them, while illegals, not being citizens, can get their healthcare at the expense of taxpaying citizens. Oh, and Nebraska residents also. I say we all establish residency in Nebraska.
I can think of a solution.....
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Happiness would be defined as seeing Swinestein, Piglousi, Reid et al tarred and feathered, led from the stocks to the gallows at the sound of a low drum roll.