Sunday, November 08, 2009

Thanks, Marcy Kaptur, for destroying liberty

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce." ~ James Madison

Some may say that her position was undecided, but most of us who know her voting record were very sure she was going to vote in favor of the government takeover of health care.

Final vote on the House version was 220 - 215 with only one Republican voting yes, though 39 Democrats voted no.

Sadly, the basic, core issue of the Constitutionality of the measure was never researched, though Republicans and at least one news source tried to raise the issue..

CNSNews asked many members of Congress where the Constitution grants the authority for mandating that citizens purchase a product and go to jail/be fined for failure to comply.

Answers ranged from 'for the common good' (a position our founders and authors of the document clearly did not intend) and 'general welfare' to 'we mandate car insurance so we can mandate health insurance.' Of course, it's the states that mandate car insurance - not the federal government, so this really isn't a valid argument for justifying the law.

Even worse was the claim that government isn't telling people WHICH insurance they have to buy - just that they have to have coverage. But the bill details what coverage you must have, so that 'logic' ends up looking as fallacious as it actually is.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said 'nobody questions' the authority.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the issue of Constitutionality of the bill was "not a serious question."

Pelosi's spokesman later said it was covered under the 'interstate commerce' clause. But how that's possible is beyond me. I'm not participating in trade between the states when I purchase my insurance. In fact, irony of all ironies, I'm not even allowed to purchase insurance across state lines!

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he had no idea if White House lawyers had reviewed the Constitutionality of forcing Americans to purchase health insurance. Gibbs went so far as to say, "... I don’t think it has gotten to the point where anybody questions the legitimacy of it.”

The reporter followed up: “Well, Orrin Hatch questions the legitimacy of it.” Gibbs quipped, “Well, you should ask him.”

The reporter asked, “Do you not feel there is any concern at all about whether it is constitutional for Congress to impose a mandate?”

“No,” Gibbs said.

So Congress 'assumed' they had the authority and then went about finding 'justification' for requiring Americans, as a condition of citizenship, to purchase a health insurance plan designed by government (regardless of their needs or wants) and to face fines, penalties and jail time for non-compliance.

And this isn't worth a discussion of the Constitutionality of the measure???? Shouldn't they settle the question of Constitutionality before they get sued over it???

In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report on the health care plan proposed by then President Bill Clinton. They wrote:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. 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.

This is exactly the plan that the House passed yesterday.

As of today, 220 members of the House of Representatives, including Marcy Kaptur, think that the government has the authority to order to you purchase a product you may not want. Or, if you do want it, to purchase the product they define, rather than the one you believe best meets your needs.

This is not a question of health insurance, it's a question of freedom, as Terence P. Jeffrey, writes:

Can President Obama and Congress enact legislation that orders Americans to buy health insurance? They might as well order Americans to buy broccoli. They have no legitimate authority to do either. Yet neither Obama nor the current leadership in Congress seems to care about the constitutional limits on their power.

They are now attempting to exert authority over the lives of Americans in a way no president and Congress has done before.

... imagine an American sitting on his back porch casually enjoying the would-be anathematized state of not owning health insurance. When it comes to health insurance, this American has not been, is not and never intends to be engaged in any form of commerce with any entity in any foreign nation, distant state or Indian tribe.

If he did decide to engage in health-insurance related commerce with any entity in a foreign nation, distant state or Indian tribe, Congress could constitutionally regulate that action. But this American simply won’t oblige. As a free person—like generations of Americans before him—he has weighed the risks and benefits of buying health insurance, and he has decided not to buy it. He is fully ready to accept the good and bad consequences of this decision.

All he wants from the government is to be left alone.

For President Obama and Congress to reach into this American’s backyard and force him to buy health insurance would be a blatantly unconstitutional act.
All versions of the health care bill under consideration in Congress would order Americans to buy health insurance. If any of these bills is enacted, the first thing it would accomplish is the amputation of a vital part of our Constitution, and the death of another measure of our liberty.

Thanks, Marcy, for helping to destroy my liberty and for the arrogance of thinking that you know better than the majority of Americans who believe they can make better decisions with their money than you can.

Lest you think this is nothing to be concerned over, just take a look at this chart of how it all works...and they say this is supposed to help????


Timothy W Higgins said...


It is long past time that Congress, in its headlong pursuit to enact legislation, pass a law which mandates a check of Constitutionality before passage of any new law.

I believe that this is necessary, since it appears that few in Congress are even vaguely familiar with the document that LIMITS government in this country.

As for Ms Kaptur's principled stand, it is neither principled nor a stand. (It is difficult to take a stand when you constantly appear to be on your knees begging for money to bring back to your district in a vain effort to say you serve your community.) There is little that we can do about her at this point, except to find and create a coalition behind a candidate to replace her at the next opportunity.

-Sepp said...

Certainly states can mandate auto insurance but, nobody is threatened with prison for not purchasing it!
"The common good" now mandates that a minority percentage of the united states has a "right" to healthcare but, everyone else who excercises their right to choose not to buy into it all are to be punished?
Nice country we USED to have!

Google Analytics Alternative