I hadn’t realized just how stupid George Pataki was until I read this:
“It is conceivable,” George Pataki, declared in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect one hundred years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”
But if he decides to run for Senate, he’ll fit right in:
When asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government “to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” In fact, the word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Picky, picky, picky. Of course, this is the guy who claimed that he couldn’t have bribed Blogojovic because “I ain’t got no money.”
The country’s in the very best of hands.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, so does Robert Gibbs think that there’s no concern that this could be unconstitutional, or that the White House doesn’t give a damn whether or not it is? Judging from their behavior in general, I’m going to go with option B.
Well, what the hell. It does say “welfare.” Tto the extent that they have even bothered providing some constitutional backing for redistributionism), the statists have been using that as an excuse to pick Peter’s pockets to provide for Paul’s welfare since FDR discovered wheelchair sex with his mistress. Why not throw “health” into the collectivist bouillabaise?
If this is unconstitutional, so is Medicare and probably Social Security. Since they survived constitutional challenges, why wouldn’t health care?
Chris, I like this idea. Having all three found unconstitutional and hence ending these programs would be a massive benefit to the US and its future.
Karl Hallowell – you may like the idea, but there doesn’t seem to be a constitutional basis to it.
The actual words of the Constitution say “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general welfare.” There’s a big difference between the words provide and promote.
Provide:
–verb (used with object) 1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.
2. to supply or equip: to provide the army with new fighter planes.
3. to afford or yield.
4. Law. to arrange for or stipulate beforehand, as by a provision or proviso.
5. Archaic. to prepare or procure beforehand.
to take measures with due foresight (usually fol. by for or against).
7. to make arrangements for supplying means of support, money, etc. (usually fol. by for): He provided for his children in his will.
8. to supply means of support (often fol. by for): to provide for oneself.
Promote:
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote ).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.
“provide for the general welfare” appears in the Constitution exactly twice. The most widely quoted is in the Preamble, which conveys no authority whatsoever. It actually states only what the purpose of the Constitution itself is, and conveys no powers.
The only other mention of “general welfare” is in Section I, Article 8, to wit: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”
An extreme case of dyslexia might lead one to conclude that the Congress has the power to provide Welfare to the United States.
The full quote it:
That’s the preamble folks. There’s been plenty of Supreme Court precedent for quite some time that the Preamble grants no authority to the Federal government to do anything in particular. It’s a guiding principle, not a delegation of authority from the People.
Congress’ enumerated powers (the things that say “This is what they can do.”) are in Article I. There ain’t no healthcare provision in there. And given that physicians existed in 1776, their regulation could have been included if the Founders saw fit to do so.
Of course, that means the Right Hon. Sen. Roland Burris is still wrong.
Chris, some of us believe Medicare and Social Security are beyond the powers the constitution grants to congress. With good reason, as both programs have ways of encouraging bad behavior and dependency on government.
What in the Constitution makes the US code constitutional? Federal crimes are breaches of the US code. Here’s the code: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html
My guess, just a guess, is whatever gives Congress the power to make US code will cover healthcare and everything else. I admit I’m puzzled – looking through the constitution, I don’t see the justification for the US code. I’m sure I’ve missed something important, and I’m being humble, so please go easy on me, but I also hope someone can provide an explanation.
I am working my way through the following article. I am baffled and fascinated. I am beginning to wonder why much of what I take for granted is constitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
Bob, the U.S. Code is the body of all laws in effect that Congress has passed and the President has signed. In Article I Congress is granted the power to legislate.
However, Congress is also required to make only such laws as are “pursuant to” the Constitution — meaning, they have to be laws which the Constitution has authorized Congress to make.
It isn’t rocket science.
(I can’t believe I said that here.)
Here’s the federal law regarding murder:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1111&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001111—-000-.html
And here’s the powers given to Congress. Which of these allows them to make murder on federal property illegal?
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
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.
This webpage suggests that the commerce clause, and the “necessary and proper” clause are the explanation.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm
A lot of weight is being held up by some pretty small hooks….
The current health reform goes way beyond Social Security and Medicare in Constitutional dubiousness. They want to require people to buy health insurance, or fine them if they don’t. Congress has pulled a lot of fast ones but they’ve never tried to force citizens to buy anything, and if they can do that it’s hard to see what they can’t do. Maybe they should force us to buy fitness club memberships; that’s also good for us, right? How about this year’s approved list of nutritious groceries Americans aren’t eating enough of?
What you should be asking is, which allows Congress to make murder on federal property in the states a federal crime.
Or better yet, where does it authorize the designation of land in a state as federal property for purposes other than national defense or post offices?
Yep.
You know, for a guy who said that he thought himself a libertarian, with every post Chris Gerrib shows himself more and more of of a State-fellator. I knew that libertarian pose was BS from the start. I can smell a statist a mile away. I think it’s the odor of Rustoleum from the chains they’re always seeking to put on people.
I am beginning to wonder why much of what I take for granted is constitutional.
Because you were educated in a government school, Bob.
Consider the case of Timothy McVeigh: “Although 168 people, including 19 children, were killed in the April 19, 1995, bombing, murder charges were brought against McVeigh only for the eight federal agents who were on duty when the bomb destroyed much of the Federal Building.”
A naive reading of the constitution made me think that McVeigh’s murders were state crimes, not federal crimes. Then, an understanding of how the “necessary and proper” clause has been expanded made me predict that any murder committed on federal property is a federal crime. But instead, apparently federalism did limit the federal jurisdiction in McVeigh case in some way, but in a way I couldn’t predict by reading the law. I picked the crime of murder because the law against murder seems like the most straightforward of laws, but I haven’t found the straightforward part yet.
There is always a counter-argument. I’m now reading this article as time permits:
“The dubious enumerated power doctrine”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3086/is_1_22/ai_n29239686/
..
Here’s an excerpt:
The Constitution, however, neither says nor was intended to say that enumerated powers of clauses 2 through 17 are exhaustive. The Framers used the Articles of Confederation as a model. In carrying over the Articles’ wording and structure, they removed old Article II’s limitation that Congress would have only powers “expressly delegated” to it. When challenged about the removal, the Framers explained that the expressly delegated limitation had proved “destructive to the Union” and that even the passport system had been challenged. (5) Proponents of the Constitution defended the deletion of “expressly” through to the passage of the Tenth Amendment. That history implies that not everything about federal power needs to be written down.
The best reading of the Constitution, moreover, gives the federal government a general power “to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.” The Constitutional Convention adopted resolutions that were supposedly binding on the committees of the Convention that actually drafted the text. The governing resolution of the Convention on federal power provided that Congress would have all of the powers it had under the Articles of Confederation, plus the power “to legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of the Union.” (6) The drafting committees took the common defense and general welfare language from Articles of Confederation, apparently as a synonym loyal to the governing resolution of the Convention.
There is always a counter-argument.
There’s always a counter-argument that gets me what I want. My view here is that things like universal health care and other such nonsense shouldn’t be constitutional. But due to the current ill-defined nature of constitutional law, such things depend on the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time.
When the laws are no longer fixed, what is legal becomes a matter of who is in power. This is the sort of thing that has helped destroy republics in the past.
Bob, it’s one thing to say that some marginal powers of the federal government exist implicitly. When you go from that to claim that the federal government has a broad, general power to “to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare”, then you are courting disaster. That is a huge loophole, not a minor elaboration of the powers of federal government.
The problems are multiple. For example, Congress would probably get to decide without question what is “general welfare”, including activities that are blatantly harmful to the US, like some of the health care plans that have been bandied about for the past few months.
But the key one is simply, why bother to enumerate powers of the government, if that enumeration doesn’t mean anything due to a huge loophole? If the government is allowed from a single phrase to do anything that can be loosely and easily be rationalized as the above phrase? Look at what happened with the Interstate Clause and that was a mostly legitimate loophole.
The point behind the Constitution is that there’s somethings that are not left to Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or even the voter to decide. When you can pick and chose particular short phrases as justification for enormous actions of the government, then you are completely undermining the point of the Constitution.