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. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”
CNSNews.com followed up by asking Sen. Feinstein whether this broad power had any limits: “If there’s a health insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority? Is there something that can’t 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. I’m 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. I’m 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.”
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.
(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.
Power mad and Constitutionally stupid. These people are enemies of this great nation
Only if you can shop for insurance across state lines would the interstate commerce authority be valid. They won’t allow it, so they can’t regulate it.
Dollars to donuts the SCOTUS in the future will either make look her like a fool or a genius
This legislation will eventually be heard by the SCOTUS
I seriously doubt they will rule this legislation is legal under the Commerce Clause.
You are not forced to buy auto insurance.
Unless you choose to drive. Then you assume risk for yourself and other drivers.
And the government does not tell you you only can buy the policy they recommend. You probably have 10 company options with other policy modifications.
Now if the government owns the insurance company, then we have a problem.
If I go to jail for not purchasing health insurance, I will get free medical care, a cot and 3 squares a day.
How can that be considered a penalty if I am not a free man on the outside?
I’ll assume then that the Interstate Commerce Clause also allows the federal government to garnish all wages, 100%, and then redistribute that money “equally”. You can “opt out” of course, at some predetermined (and massive) fine, but if you don’t pay the fine, you’ll go to jail.
If that’s the case that they are making, I don’t see what is stopping them from using the ICC for the above scenario.
Right, and all the people in urban areas who rely on public transportation, bicycles, walking, don’t have to buy it.
While we’re spitting on FDR’s grave, we can also stop by Wilson’s and spit for his introduction of the “temporary” income tax. Was that the beginning of all the so-called “temporary” taxes to be imposed only upon “the rich” that have been enacted and never repealed? Just like all the socialist welfare programs which are “emergency” measures which also somehow become permanent? The left has understood and used incrementalism well. In recent times, they’ve had cooperation from the right in the form of “globalism” and “one world government”. Between the two, our sovereignty and freedoms have been worn away like running water on a boulder.
Not really, you choose to own a car, therefore you must have insurance by law for that vehicle if you choose to drive it. You cannot choose whether or when you get sick, or even breathe for that matter, so it is not really the same thing.
“Only if you can shop for insurance across state lines would the interstate commerce authority be valid. They won’t allow it, so they can’t regulate it.”
Exactly what I said.
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.