Skip to comments.Sen. Lincoln: Congress Can Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance
Posted on 12/16/2009 3:11:22 PM PST by bogusname
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told CNSNews.com that Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.
The words health and well-being do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The Congressional Budget Office has determined that in the entire history of the United States the federal government has never mandated that Americans buy any good or service. Both the House and Senate health care bills, however, include provisions that require all legal residents of the U.S. to purchase health insurance, a provision whose constitutionality has been qiuestioned by, among others, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
She is a disgrace to the name.
This is not going to end well.
“Sen. Lincoln: Congress Can Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance...”
Senator Lincoln, kindly find that in the Constitution or resign your seat immediately.
Just proof that these rotten RATS never read the Constitution. And they swore to uphold it.
Blanche Lincoln’s tenure is over in the Senate next year.
There ought to be some sort of written test in which congressmen are required to correctly answer questions about the constitution before they are allowed to take office.
“We only want ta help you.”
The Constitution means nothing to these people, I am surprised she even mentioned it.
The Constitution was thrown out the door when a Justice of the Supreme Court had the audacity to swear in a man who was not proven qualified, to the office of President of the United States.
That man threw away the Constitution that day.
I am thoroughly convinced that there is a mental illness or derangement syndrome associated with prolonged exposure to government service. Everyone who goes to Washington DC, regardless of party, gets crazier the longer they are there.
I guess this means that Congress can require all Americans to eat Spinach and Broccoli and to jog 20 minutes every other day.
This arrogant Beotch needs to be on the unemployment line-—STAT!
charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.
“promote the general welfare”????????
Idiot . . .
With all due respect, Senator, you are an idiot.
No you can’t Blanche. Your career in the US Senate is finished.
Literacy (an basic Civics) testing should not only be required to vote, but to hold office as well.
End universal suffrage.
“With all due respect . . .”
Which happens to be NONE!
We came to the same conclusion as well: “idiot”
I’ve been saying all along that if they pass a mandatory insurance (a good or service), under the “promote the general welfare” phrase of the Constitution - theres gonna be a lawsuit that lands in front of SCOTUS.
IF SCOTUS upholds it - it’ll open up the floodgates. Congress could then pass ANY bill mandating compulsory goods or services, more lawsuits would then be filed, and then SCOTUS would then be in the unenviable position of having to determine which goods or services “promoted the general welfare” on an individual case basis ...
Elections do have consequences..... This may be the greatest lesson ever learned by THE PEOPLE...
Test on the Constitution? ... hell ... Test on anything.
I’ve resigned to the fact that we have an entire senate and congress full of MORONs with an IQ less than 50.
Evidently its the only place they can find employment, cause I sure wouldn’t hire them for my business ... and don’t thing many other emploryers would either.
Not enough collective intellect there to jumpstart a moron.
They should re-institute Poll tests so we don’t elect idiots. I know, it will never happen.
force.........thats tyranny folks.
You want to expropriate my money, then lets have hearings. There won't be any force to force anyone to do anything.
We don't need force to get rid of the likes of Lincoln. She is as good as gone NOW. We DE-ELECT her.
No force necessary.We are civilized.
She works for us. And we just fired her.
The pink slip is in the mail Lincoln.
And the sooner the better.
Um, no government can’t. And I will say so at the back end of my gun, along will millions of others.
I was thinking the same thing.
Bring an arrest warrant to my door Ms. Hotrod Lincoln...and I show you some cheap toilet paper!
Blanche Lincoln was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2004 because she was able to BS Arkansas voters into believing she was a middle of the road moderate. She’s slick, but she really screwed up this summer when she took way too long to decide against supporting a government run public option. Her dithering allowed her Repub opponents to successfully label her as a quiet supporter of government run healthcare, and despite her countless attempts to deny this Arkansas voters now do not trust her. She’s a longtime member of the NRA, part of her image as a moderate, but in 2010 she won’t be able to fool a majority Razorback voters again. See ya Blanche.
No where is it the business of the government for the ‘health and well being of the people’. But it makes for good brain washing, I guess.
There must be a severe change of course....a revolution perhaps?
Unfortunately Lincoln is a longtime member of the NRA purely for political reasons. Without it she would never poll well in rural Arkansas, and you can’t win Statewide elections there by just carrying Little Rock.
Yet another unintended consequence of the our Civil War.
She is certainly going to have a hard time rounding up everyone to make them buy insurance when she is defeated in 2010 and sent ‘home’ to Virginia where she actually lives.
Arkansas will be better off without her!
Gawd..we don’t want her kind here in Virginia!
Heck she might run for Jim Webb’s seat!
...American citizens are unarmed and there is no constitution or "Bill of Rights"...OH WAIT!
People in Arkansas need to turn up the heat immediately. Reid is determined to jamm this damned thing thru on Christmas Day, believing people will be sufficiently distracted.
Tell Nelson, Webb, Lincoln and others that not only will we defeat each of them in 2010 and 12, we don’t appreciate having our Christmas ruined, either.
She’s making these statements and has no clue what is in our law of the land.
That should be enough to relieve her of her duties by the taxpayers. If they cause a national mess with thier ignorance then they need to be punished by the nation.
The scum indeed rises to the top in DC politics. Time to filter the louts out of the system albeit a sewer it is!
We need to buy a new Congress that will stay bought by the People.
Justice Brewer in State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907), establishes that the federal government has no Constitutional claim to power to legislate on issues of a "national character" beyond the specifically enumerated powers. Such undelegated powers are retained by "all the people of the states":
"...counsel for the government relies upon 'the doctrine of sovereign and inherent power;' adding, 'I am aware that in advancing this doctrine I seem to challenge great decisions of the court, and I speak with deference.' His argument runs substantially along this line: All legislative power must be vested in either the state or the national government; no legislative powers belong to a state government other than those which affect solely the internal affairs of that state; consequently all powers which are national in their scope must be found vested in the Congress of the United States. But the proposition that there are legislative powers affecting the nation as a whole which belong to, although not expressed in the grant of powers, is in direct conflict with the doctrine that this is a government of enumerated powers. That this is such a government clearly appears from the Constitution, independently of the Amendments, for otherwise there would be an instrument granting certain specified things made operative to grant other and distinct things. This natural construction of the original body of the Constitution is made absolutely certain by the 10th Amendment. This Amendment, which was seemingly adopted with prescience of just such contention as the present, disclosed the widespread fear that the national government might, under the pressure of a supposed general welfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted. With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should ever find justification in the organic act, and that if, in the future, further powers seemed necessary, they should be granted by the people in the manner they had provided for amending that act. It reads: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' The argument of counsel ignores the principal factor in this article, to wit, 'the people.' Its principal purpose was not the distribution of power between the United States and the states, but a reservation to the people of all powers not granted. The preamble of the Constitution declares who framed it,-'we, the people of the United States,' not the people of one state, but the people of all the states; and article 10 reserves to the people of all the states the powers not delegated to the United States. The powers affecting the internal affairs of the states not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and all powers of a national character which are not delegated to the national government by the Constitution are reserved to the people of the United States. The people who adopted the Constitution knew that in the nature of things they could not foresee all the questions which might arise in the future, all the circumstances which might call for the exercise of further national powers than those granted to the United States, and, after making provision for an amendment to the Constitution by which any needed additional powers would be granted, they reserved to themselves all powers not so delegated. This article 10 is not to be shorn of its meaning by any narrow or technical construction, but is to be considered fairly and liberally so as to give effect to its scope and meaning. As we said, construing an express limitation on the powers of Congress, in Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283, 288, 45 S. L. ed. 862, 865, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648, 650:
"'We are not here confronted with a question of the extent of the powers of Congress, but one of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on its action, and it seems to us clear that the same rule and spirit of construction must also be recognized. If powers granted are to be taken as broadly granted and as carrying with them authority to pass those acts which may be reasonably necessary to carry them into full execution; in other words, if the Constitution in its grant of powers is to be so construed that Congress shall be able to carry into full effect the powers granted, it is equally imperative that, where prohibition or limitation is placed upon the power of Congress, that prohibition or limitation should be enforced in its spirit and to its entirety. It would be a strange rule of construction that language granting powers is to be liberally construed, and that language of restriction is to be narrowly and technically construed. Especially is this true when, in respect to grants of powers, there is, as heretofore noticed, the help found in the last clause of the 8th section, and no such helping clause in respect to prohibitions and limitations. The true spirit of constitutional interpretation in both directions is to give full, liberal construction to the language, aiming ever to show fidelity to the spirit and purpose.'"
In the case of Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936), the Court had occasion to review the limits of the legislative power of Congress as is Constitutionally restricted to specifically enumerated powers. Justice Sutherland, in delivering the opinion of the Court made it clear that a national "general public interest" or promotion of "the general welfare" is insufficient authority to legislate, absent the legitimate authority of a specifically enumerated power:
..."Certain recitals contained in the act plainly suggest that its makers were of opinion that its constitutionality could be sustained under some general federal power, thought to exist, apart from the specific grants of the Constitution...the powers which Congress undertook to exercise are not specific but of the most general character-namely, to protect the general public interest and the health and comfort of the people, to conserve privately-owned coal, maintain just relations between producers and employees and others, and promote the general welfare, by controlling nation-wide production and distribution of coal. These, it may be conceded, are objects of great worth; but are they ends, the attainment of which has been committed by the Constitution to the federal government? This is a vital question; for nothing is more certain than that beneficent aims, however great or well directed, can never serve in lieu of constitutional power."
"The ruling and firmly established principle is that the powers which the general government may exercise are only those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers. Whether the end sought to be attained by an act of Congress is legitimate is wholly a matter of constitutional power and not at all of legislative discretion. Legislative congressional discretion begins with the choice of means and ends wit the adoption of methods and details to carry the delegated powers into effect. The distinction between these two things-power and discretion-is not only very plain but very important. For while the powers are rigidly limited to the enumerations of the Constitution, the means which may be employed to carry the powers into effect are not restricted, save that they must be appropriate, plainly adapted to the end, and not prohibited by, but consistent with, the letter and spirit of the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421. Thus, it may be said that to a constitutional end many ways are open; but to an end not within the terms of the Constitution, all ways are closed.
"The proposition, often advanced and as often discredited, that the power of the federal government inherently extends to purposes affecting the Nation as a whole with which the states severally cannot deal or cannot adequately deal, and the related notion that Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court. Mr. Justice Story, as early as 1816, laid down the cardinal rule, which has ever since been followed-that the general government 'can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication.' Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326. In the Framers Convention, the proposal to confer a general power akin to that just discussed was included in Mr. Randolph's resolutions, the sixth of which, among other things, declared that the National Legislature ought to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation, and 'moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation.' The convention, however, declined to confer upon Congress power in such general terms; instead of which it carefully limited the powers which it thought wise to intrust to Congress by specifying them, thereby denying all others not granted expressly or by necessary implication. It made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare, United States v. Butler, supra, 297 U.S. 1, at page 64, 56 S.Ct. 312, 102 A.L.R. 914; and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted. Compare Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22, 25 S.Ct. 358, 3 Ann.Cas. 765."
Scratch a Fascist, find an imbecile. It never fails.
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.