[Pharmboy]

Well, it appears that the barrister is saying that following the Constitution could lead to serious problems; so, the lawyer is saying that to h*ll with the law, let's just do the expedient thing here.

Am I reading this right? The NEJM is the most influential medical journal in the US, and possibly the world; it tilts far left, but occasionally does allow the other side to have a word or two.

This was published online first a few weeks ago, it just now appeared in print.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Even if the USSC declares Medicaid unconstitutional, “let them enforce it” as one previous despot put it.

[KoRn]

"Perspective: Is Medicaid Constitutional?"

Hell no! Neither is 90% of the other things the federal government is doing. Our people have FAILED!

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Who said we have a Constitution? I thought we lived in “to hell with the law” times and seasons. Courts do whatever they want with no checks or balances.

[traditional1]

"The federal government will pay 100% of the cost of this expansion"

Bullshit.

The "federal govenment" pays for NOTHING. They ONLY can have TAXPAYERS earnings confiscated to buy the votes of their favored constituencies, as always.

Where in the Constitution does it say that "handouts to NON-CITIZENS and inner city tribal parasites" shall be the Law of the Land?

[SierraWasp]

The last CONgressman to stand tall against unconstitutional GovernMental charity/welfare idea was Congressman Davy Crocket!!!

By the way... Does the redistricting rape of CA for State Assembly/Senate seats pertain in anyway, or have any effect on Congressional districts???

I don't want to be torn away from Congressman Tom McClintock who is the closest to the Honorable Davy Crocket of anyone in that whole miserable house of ill repute!!!

[TimSkalaBim]

I think you're reading the article right. Following the Constitution would create immense problems for our current government; it would, as the author euphemistically states, impair the ability of the FedGov to coerce states and bend citizens to its will:

The Court's establishing the coercion theory as an active legal doctrine would threaten the ability of the federal government to work with the states to address national problems.

The author relies upon political arguments to present his case (i.e., everyone is so used to Medicaid funding that an interruption in the funding stream would be catastrophic), not Constitutional arguments, which there are none.

[Graewoulf]

Isn’t it interesting that ALL of the Un-Constitutional “Entitlements” are the major Debt Centers in our Republic?

[theBuckwheat]

"Is Medicaid Constitutional?" No, I cannot believe the Constitution allows the appropriation of public money for the benefit of a private party. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” ― James Madison