A simple question for progressives (#10)


Since we presumably still live in a nation of laws and not of men, and since the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, I ask you to first read these small portions of that document, after which I'll pose my question.

U.S. Constitution

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

U.S. Constitution

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

U.S. Constitution

Amendment X

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.

Given the above supreme law of the land that sets out the enumerated powers of Congress, on what basis does Congress have the authority to enact Obamacare?

Don't tell me it's justified because it's a good idea, because it's fair, because it's in my interest to want it, because Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP already exist, because Obamacare will save money, because I'm a heartless hateful warmongering homophobic puppy-killing raaaaacist, because America wants Hopenchange© ... just tell me how Congress can possibly have the constitutional authority to enact Obamacare.

1 TrackBack

Under Nancy Pelosi's version of ObamaCare, Americans who do not maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous... Read More



if they go through due process and have fair support of both sides we can have universal healthcare better yet a model like australias (Noam chomsky recommended we take after their system)

You completely ignored the question. Typical progressive.



Given the current state of the law, the fair answer is this clause:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Clearly health care is commerce and if its commerce, Congress can mess with it. Of course, they will need a healthy amount of this too:

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

Believe me, I know that's what the statists will cite as justification. To them, the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause are blank checks for fulfilling their every warm fuzzy wish. Sure, stare decisis has applied glacier-thick layers of traditional deference to the statists' interpretation, but it's still wrong (especially if the courts try to justify ObamaCare as a proper exercise of the Interstate Commerce Clause). They must be stopped.

Wickard v. Filburn and its like-minded progeny uphold the finest tradition of that famous quip from Oliver Twist, "the law is a ass."

To quote the Father of the Constitution himself ...

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. -- James Madison

[NOTE: Link to WSJ opinion piece added 11/12/09]

RSS   Twitter

SOB Alliance posts
Web Analytics