Former Judiciary Chair Conyers Says He's ‘Found a Very Good Set of Arguments’ for...

CNSNews ^ | January 19, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[jazusamo]

Complete title: Former Judiciary Chair Conyers Says He's ‘Found a Very Good Set of Arguments’ for Constitutionality of Obamacare—Doesn’t Say Exactly What They Are

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.)

When Obamacare was being debated in the House of Representatives last year, then-House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.) said that the provision in the bill forcing individuals to buy health care was justified by what he called the “good and welfare clause” of the Constitution.

The problem with that argument was there is no “good and welfare clause” in the Constitution.

On Wednesday, debating the repeal of Obamacare on the House floor, Conyers, who lost the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when his party lost the House majority in last fall’s election, said that he has discovered an argument for the constitutionality of Obamacare. But this time Conyers did not say exactly where in the Constitution that argument could be found.

“The question of constitutionality is a very interesting one for the Judiciary Committee, a matter we are going to go into further,” said Conyers, who is now the ranking Democrat on that committee.

“But we've found a very good set of arguments about the ability of this bill to be totally within the framework of our Constitution,” said Conyers. “Come on. We already have Medicare. Who do you think runs that? We already have Medicaid. What about Social Security?”

Before Obamacare was passed with its mandate forcing individuals to buy government-approved health-insurance plans, the federal government had never before ordered Americans to buy any good or service, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, ruling on a suit brought by the state of Virginia against the individual mandate, agreed that the mandate was a novel expression of federal power. He ruled that it was unconstitutional, and could not be justified, as the Obama administration had argued, by either the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the states, or the General Welfare Clause, which allows the federal government to levy taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Here is Conyers last year invoking the "good and welfare clause" as constitutional justification for Obamacare:

[jazusamo]

Perhaps John paid a prison visit to Monica and she gave it to him.

[achilles2000]

Someone should tell Conyers that it isn’t the “good and Welfare clause”; it’s the “Good and Plenty” clause.

[jazusamo]

LOL! “Good and Plenty,” I like that.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon and donate or become a monthly donor!

[jonrick46]

Perhaps he was thinking of the Line My Pockets clause in the Constitution. For him it is always, ‘line my pockets.’ That’s the ticket.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Been in Congress how many years?

And still hasn’t read The Constitution . . . what a joke . . the good and welfare clause LOL at the idiocy

[traditional1]

Just curious; how do you “opt out” of Social Security, and/or, refuse to participate and donate to it?

[shibumi]

This story is obviously out of whole cloth.

It presumes two things that are patently absurd -

First, that Conyers can read.

Second that he’s used that ability (Ha!) to peruse the Constitution.

[traditional1]

"Someone should tell Conyers that it isn’t the “good and Welfare clause”; it’s the “Good and Plenty” clause."

[gov_bean_ counter]

I’m here for an argument...
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/monty-python-argument-clinic-spanish-sub/187fd2fffbd4d867f1bb187fd2fffbd4d867f1bb-417677706561?q=the+argument+monty+python&FORM=VIRE8

[FrankR]

Probably when they read the Constitution in Congress a few days ago, more than likely the first time Conyers has been exposed to it. I'm sure SOMEONE had to read it TO him, knowing his obvious mental state

He also found one to stop the shipment of Marines to Guam, and Hank Johnson convinced Conyers the island would tip over from the extra weight.



He also probably consulted with that renowned Constitutional scholar, Shiela Jackson Lee before making this announcement.

[Christian Engineer Mass]

“Come on. We already have Medicare. Who do you think runs that? We already have Medicaid. What about Social Security?”

3 fallacies in this:

PETITIO PRINCIPII

CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL

FALSE ANALOGY

[Iron Munro]

Conyers couldn’t find his own arse with both hands and a secret map with detailed instructions in Ebonics.

[NewJerseyJoe]

Yeah — no doubt, in the same way that Harry Blackmun “found” a rationale for killing babies in the Constitution....

[freekitty]

Forcing individuals is not a good idea, Conyers; so put your crap away and let it be.

[sergeantdave]

Conyers is an insect and I’m being complimentary.

[patton]

On FNC today, they announced that fully 20% of the elected officials in the US think that the Electoral College is a school for higher officials.

We are in deep kimchee.

[CONSERVE]

Get elected to a federal position.

[patriot preacher]

No, he hasn’t. They don’t exist. He can’t even invent them...

[patriot preacher]

No, he hasn’t. They don’t exist. He can’t even invent them...