Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) believes the current health care legislation endangers constitutional liberties and he enumerates some pretty sound reasons to support his beliefs.

“If politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty,” wrote Senator Orrin Hatch in an opinion piece that was posted on Business Investor’s Daily website. Hatch’s words are somewhat of a surprise, given he advocated for CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) the taxpayer funded program for insuring children, in 2007. However he is a member of the Senate Finance Committee whose version of the health care bill is particularly onerous on multiple levels and he should by now be personally familiar with all aspects of the bill.

In the piece, Hatch seems to invoke the Tenth Amendment saying, “Our written Constitution delegates only certain powers to the federal government and Congress must point to at least one of them as authority to pass legislation.”

Noting that some believe the constitutional basis for the portion of the health care bill that would require everyone to purchase health care insurance falls under the interstate commerce umbrella, Hatch explains:

For the first time, the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase. Rather than regulate an activity in which individuals chose to engage, Congress would be requiring an activity in which individuals had chosen not to engage...

This crosses a proverbial constitutional Rubicon. If Congress can order Americans to buy certain products, why did it bother with a Cash for Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances? Congress could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, refrigerators or dishwashers.

The same thing applies if Congress had ordered Americans to buy certain stocks and deposit their paychecks in certain banks there would be no need for the stimulus and TARP programs, which rather hits home. He sees a logical parallel in the fight against obesity if people were forced to buy and consume fruits and vegetables.

By requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, whether they would need it or ever use it goes far beyond, say, care insurance requirements, as health care is often likened to. Hatch notes states that require car insurance do so only as a condition for the privilege of driving; if one doesn't drive down the road, one is not forced to purchase insurance.

But the real crux of the matter could be in the tax imposed on those who fail to cooperate in buying health insurance, from the government or private insurers. The tax would apply only to those who DON’T take part and therefore are outside any transaction, the tax being imposed for something that WASN’T purchased. This Hatch sees as a direct tax and one that is quite unconstitutional:

This matters because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population. America's founders were especially concerned to limit the federal government's power of direct taxation, and it took the 16th Amendment to allow Congress to impose a federal income tax without that apportionment requirement.

Further delving into another Finance Committee proposal brings to light an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans that is supposed to provide relief for insurers in 17, as of now, unnamed states. But this too would be a violation because the Constitution requires all direct taxes be apportioned, or “uniform throughout the United States.”  The example given is that Congress cannot impose a cigarette tax in one state and not in another.

“The liberty we enjoy in America requires limits on government power, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution,” wrote Hatch. Fine words, indeed, but words are not enough.

Certainly the good senator should know that all limits on governmental power are contained in the Constitution. It is these enumerated constitutional devices that provide the general framework of our political system. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, declares Article VI, which also explicitly states that laws passed by Congress must conform to, and be made in pursuance of, the Constitution.

Acts of Congress that are contrary to the Constitution are not laws, but automatically void, and cannot be enforced. Because a tyrant may refer to his commands or rulings as “laws” does not make them so. Even the king himself under the concept of medieval English law was subject to the law, because “the Law makes the king,” and not the other way around. This concept also applies to legislative bodies and judicial reviews.

It remains to be seen if Congress will choose to ignore some very pertinent points of the law in this case, and deliberately ignore the fact that the opposite of Constitutional law is a despotic government where the government of will substitutes for real law, continuing on their merry way toward that despotic government.

If ever there was an example of government of will, it is in the case of the health care bill, where the electorate is battling--using contemporary technological advances--as they have never battled before in modern times. Senator Hatch and his confrers need to respond accordingly.
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Kenneth Creech said:

	... Thank you Ann for a fresh look at the fact that all law should be in accordance with the constitution and particularly article six. It seems to be high that all laws not meeting this requirement be stripped from codified law. YES HIGH TIME!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 08, 2009
Votes: +2

DDW said:

	Mr. Creech Is 100% correct!! Thank you Mr. Creech. If a law passed is in violation of the Constitution, can it not then be said to have the "color" of law and not be a legitimate law and as such can, and should, be defied? We need lots and lots of laws struck down and removed rather than new ones generated. Isn't it true that dictators and tyrants love to have lots and lots of laws on the books?
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 08, 2009
Votes: +4

SCHNORCHEL said:

	Overdue Like Senator Harry Reid, Senator Orrin Hatch is way overdue to be replaced with an Americanist. His hypocritical remarks on the Constitution makes him unqualified to be a Senator.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 08, 2009
Votes: +0

sosueme said:

Anybody really think? Anybody really think the ruling elite give a rats a*@ what the Constitution says? Or the American people either, for that matter. If they felt obligated in anyway by their oathes of office, they wouldn't be able to "fundamentally change America". These people in power today are well on their way of accomplishing their goal, a little thing like words on paper aren't going to stop them in creating utopia like their brethern did in Europe. Until the idiots that re-elect these punks, perverts & thieves start paying attention to facts instead of "government freebies", we'll continue to have the egotistic, narcissist, traitors & thieves that we have now. If we don't make wholesale changes in our government, starting in 2010, we may as well get in line & be fitted for our yokes. It may already be too late, our fate may be sealed. If that's the case, I'd suggest everyone to stock some food, water & especially ammo. Because to put it bluntly, defecation is going to impact the oscillating unit. God save us all! Here comes the government & they're here to help us!

report abuse vote down vote up

October 09, 2009 | url
Votes: +6

RP said:

Latest Freedom Index While Mr. Hatch has earned a 71% which looks very good compared to Mr. Reid's 0%, we are back to the game of playing lesser of two evils here. Here the Republicrats got called on their un-American activities and the Demoplicans got into power. Now the Republicrats want to show how much they "love" the Constitution. All these marvelous senators need to be replaced by Constitutionalist Americans. Repeal the 17th Amendment (which may never have been properly passed by Congress anyway).

report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009
Votes: +0

sovereigndust said:

... Defending the Constitution entails opposing unconstitutional, undeclared wars as well as opposing government healthcare. Anyone who opposes government healthcare on Constitutional grounds should be opposed to Presidents who start wars wherever and whenever the arms manufacturers need a few trillion. Iraq is the same boondoggle that Vietnam was. Next stop on the war profiteering bandwagon: Afghanistan! War profiteers don't sacrifice a dime while American troops sacrifice their lives.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 13, 2009
Votes: +0