- Pelosi Rebuffs Constitutional Question

Written by Ann Shibler

Wednesday, 28 October 2009 15:00

Pelosi Health care Seems that more and more of those who would pass the health care reform bill on to us with all of its ramifications — loss of individual freedoms and gargantuan costs — are all on the same page when it comes to promoting it as being constitutionally correct.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, though, needed some extra time to answer a direct question that was put to her by CNS News on the matter.

The Question and the Answer:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Disgust registering in her voice — or was it something else? — then shaking her head, Madam Speaker moved on to another question.

CNS News was told by Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami that the enquiry was not a “serious question.” “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

But ducking questions is apparently serious business these days. If the question wasn’t a serious one, why did Elshami bother sending a press release to written follow-up questions by CNS News?

More Questions by CNS News:

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” “If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" "If so, what is that limit?”

Answers: Well, there wasn’t, specifically.

Spokesman Elshami instead sent a press release from September 16 to CNS News that offered Pelosi's twisted and stretched-beyond-recognition interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Using an incorrect application of the broad powers for regulating interstate commerce, Pelosi’s regulation mania is obvious in the press release:

The Constitution gives congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the health care system has a effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited...

On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers) — or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans — but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.

Pelosi calls anything other than this interpretation a myth. Using her doublespeak, non-participatory fines are now a "strong incentive," the Commerce Clause grants her and her accomplices "unlimited" dictatorial powers, and extortion/coercion is "a way to pay their way out," while the government isn't passing "emergency health costs onto other Americans," citizens do this by not having insurance coverage.

But the Congressional Budget Office already dismissed her politicially codified argument back in 1994 when Bill Clinton wanted to mandate health insurance coverage:

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.

As did Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) quite recently, saying:

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.

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s constitutional analysis in a Wall Street Journal column gives even further insight into not only the incorrectness and unconstitutionality of Pelosi’s position, but the “raw abuse of power of the federal government for political purposes,” says Napolitano.

Napolitano says Congress has conveniently forgotten that the federal government was granted specific enumerated powers, limited by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The power to regulate interstate commerce was intended to keep regular the trade between states and eliminate unfair in-state advantages. Stretching the interpretation of interstate commerce regulation that Pelosi and others are attempting to do, and applying it to a very intimate matter like health care is far beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause. Notes Napolitano:

The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the constitution understood, but to improve one’s health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

The good judge added, “They aren’t upholding the Constitution — they are evading it.”

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13) add comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

RP said:

	... "Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production." What Pelosi is saying is that because Congress has gotten away with usurping the Constitution repeatedly in the past, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so again.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +9

Lee Gonzales said:

	CNS News Three cheers to the man from CNS News!
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +11

DDW said:

	That miserable, wretched Power hungry Pelosi harridan needs to be jerked right out of government by the hair of her head so quickly that the only thing left is her shoes where she was standing
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +10

Stophel said:

	... "This crosses a proverbial constitutional Rubicon." Oh, that happened a LOOOOONG time ago.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +3

The American Guardian said:

	The American Guardian The Constitution isn't a serious matter ???
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +5