Legal scholars divided over Congress' authority
On top of all the other obstacles facing President Obama in his quest to pass health reform is this one: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse?
Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.
While this debate has been overshadowed by other issues involving the plan's nearly $1 trillion cost and its government-run option, the constitutional argument strikes at a pivotal part of the health care plan's finances. To make a government-run health care plan work, the nation's largely uninsured young adults would need to be covered to help subsidize medical care for older and typically less-healthy Americans, legislators say.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the complaint Thursday when she was asked by a reporter if the Democrats' health reform proposal was constitutional.
"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Mrs. Pelosi replied.
But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said the argument could not be ignored.
"I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I think it's wrong to mandate that the American people have to do anything," he told reporters at his own press briefing last week.
The question of the mandate's constitutionality "hasn't been part of the public debate, but the legal community has been debating it. It's been on all the legal blogs," said Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said "the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance."
GO HERE to read more.
Seems like something we should be sure of before we even continue the public option debate.
ReplyDeleteNonsense! Stare decisis: See Medicare taxes.
ReplyDeleteI love the comment by Boehner....Really John, you mean like pay taxes???????
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to get technical 11:34 the 16th amendment to the constitution (taxes) was never ratified by the states.. so income taxes are un constitutional also. Why should a wage be taxable, you work u get paid for your service, profits yes but a wage for a honest days work should not be taxed, but hey I would be pissing up a rope on point
ReplyDelete11:49 These days I might be willing to try.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution allows for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes.
ReplyDeleteIndirect Taxes are avoidable - like tolls, licenses, etc.
Direct Taxes - MUST BE APPORTIONED. Everyone pays the same exact amount.
Since 1937 and FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court, which caused the Court to cave on Social Security, the Congress has largely ignored the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAs the Libs are fond of saying, it is now a living, breathing (I would add, meaningless) document. It will remain so, as long as we keep voting this type legislator into office.
Since when have these idiots let the Constitution stand in their way? They will do what they want until we vote them out of office or revolt, whichever comes first.
ReplyDeleteThere is no voting them out of office. Until they have a complete understanding that there is a price to pay for trampling the constitution, there will be no change. They will continue to line their own pockets with taxpayers dollars and those of the lobbyists, large corporations, and other special interest groups who POUR money into campaigns. The "general welfare clause" is an abomination of the intent of the Preamble to the Constitution by a Supreme Court that caved to political pressure. This very act paved the way for the continued dismantling of our Constitution and subsequently the very foundation upon which this once great nation was built. We will, without doubt, be a socialist nation moving quickly toward communism. How long will we stand for this?
ReplyDeleteCome off the ledge Bob.
ReplyDelete