McCain-Feingold takes a hit
For years, many of us in the blogosphere have argued that the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold,
violates the fundamental Constitutional exercise of free speech,
especially in politics,……

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I had a top notch composite post of the day’s events in the Health Wars, and moveable type pulled a Blogger and ate it all beyond any hope of recovery.  So here are the attendant source……

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” James Madison

“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

Plainly, according to Madison, Congress has no authority to enact healthcare legislation and the “General Welfare”, included in the PREAMBLE, has no real power of law but is a general statement.
This would also make Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare unconstitutional and illegal.

As for Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, Congress has the power ” To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers” included in the prior 17 clauses of Article 1, Section 8.

Good Job again Ed!

Laura in Maryland on August 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Me, neither…

[PSA: Ain't No Log Kabin Klavern in the Klan.] :-)

While Congress does have the power to block insurers from crossing state lines to sell policies — a very stupid policy, but one that falls under Article I, Section 8 — it does not have the constitutional authority to dictate the terms of the policies sold within the states.

The line for lawyers to prepare for the court cases challenging this crap sandwich, if passed, forms over there.

The interstate commerce clause has been misinterpreted for decades in favor of greater federal power, but even those misreadings never granted DC the power to block contracts for legal goods and services at the consumer level. It regulates the commerce between the states, ie, one state bargaining with another, and states bargaining with Indian tribes, in order to avoid the kind of conflicts that had doomed the previous Articles of Confederation. While Congress does have the power to block insurers from crossing state lines to sell policies — a very stupid policy, but one that falls under Article I, Section 8 — it does not have the constitutional authority to dictate the terms of the policies sold within the states.

Ed. Can you say more about that? Why would Congress have that power? If the limit of the Interstate Commerce Clause is between States (i.e., the governing bodies thereof), then why would they have power over what are essentially individual entities (i.e., corporations designed to sell items to consumers)? That transaction is not at the state level. It seems like the States themselves, as long as they consistently enforce their licensing policies would be the highest level of government power in this situation.

Am I missing a distinction about corporations in general, or about insurance providers in particular?

Cardin: You know what gov’t does well? Medicare!

If your definition of success is a fraud riddled, ever growing entitlement program, then yes it’s a success.

If you send someone to DC expecting them to bring back the bacon…you’re part of the problem too. Educate your children about the proper uses of government and why it’s a necessary evil not a power for good.

May just be the best thing I’ve read for awhile……

That worn out explanation making the rounds excusing the highest salaried CEOs from tax increases ignores their salaried disproportionate growth this past decade at the expense of corporate investor dividends.

maverick muse on August 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM

I’m not sure were tracking here. My response was implying that “some else” pays for them. The “You” part was a parody of leftist redistribution.

But it is interesting that you bring up dividends. Since they are double taxed, most investors don’t actually want dividends. the logic is why pay pay corporate income taxes on the profit, instead spend the money inside the company to create capital gains in stock price. Current tax law is actually a dis-incentive to stockholders staying long in a company and caring about it’s fiscal state.

good point

How will tax increases pan out?
Those earning less than a fortune of millions a year, taxes go up. Those earning more don’t pay taxes: Geithner.

That worn out explanation making the rounds excusing the highest salaried CEOs from tax increases ignores their salaried disproportionate growth this past decade at the expense of corporate investor dividends.

Obama’s economic mandates require our income to subsidize non-producing Gore Cash Cows, purely windfall income and profits to line green socialist pockets, accomplishing the draining of America.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. When was the last time SCOTUS struck down legislation because it was beyond the power delegated by the constitution (as opposed to violation of an individual right)

Fighton03 on August 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM

There was a case in the last few years, but details escape me. I for one am not as keen as others on the Supreme Court, mainly because I think the emphasis in Con Law madrassas has become too much on the hadith of Supreme Court rulings and not enough on the qur’an of the Constitution itself. (Conversely, one could say synagogue, Talmud, and Torah).

I have awarded myself bonus points for multiculturalism.

How can so many yet be clawing to their audacity of hope? They recall the advise of McCain assuring everyone what a wonderful, compassionate family man Obama really is.

Compound that message with all those boobs playing Alinsky games in order to retain their own sense of malicious balance, not willing to face harsh reality, only revisionism. Rather malign every Constitutional means of legitimately removing this Marxist from the Oval Office than be tagged by the Beast as “fishy”.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. When was the last time SCOTUS struck down legislation because it was beyond the power delegated by the constitution?

Fighton03 on August 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM

It seems like now’s the time. If this POS passes with provisions forcing people into the public option or limiting their ability to negotiate individual contracts it should be attacked immediately as unconstitutional. It would sure help if someone was already threatening lawsuits and calling these guys out.

BTW, has anyone noticed there’s not a single GOP face on the HotAir headlines? The only GOP thread this morning was Cantor’s choke on the “Rebranding”. They should be swinging from their heels and they’re doing next to nothing. What a total bunch of losers.

Democrat “pay as you go” means pass the buck.

maverick muse on August 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM

For a donkeycrat the emphasis is on the ‘YOU pay’