Protester to Mark Warner: Which part of the Constitution says you get to take over health care?

posted at 8:23 pm on September 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via CNS. We’ve been down this road before but it’s one thing to kick around arguments in the comments and another to watch a U.S. Senator be put on the spot. Warner’s argument won’t appeal to strict constructionists — he concedes that there’s no health-care power, just like there’s no education power — but from a practical standpoint he’s right that this ship has already sailed. Through the Commerce Clause all things are possible, my friends.

This one might be hard to swallow so, to cleanse the palate, I’ve added a second clip below it courtesy of Hot Air Pundit. That should leave you feeling minty fresh.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I just read it. It didn’t mention an air force either.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Read the part about providing for a common defense and the GENERAL welfare. Also the whole thing about enumerated powers. Start there.

You are the definition of OBTUSE.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

It is quite clear in the Bible that free will was important and therefore, all of this forced charity would not fly with Him. There is little doubt that Jesus understood that people by their own actions could become successful. Read the parable of talents.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Wow, there’s a great line in there where Jesus Christ says that government funded health care will have death panels. Totally relevant to this discussion!

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I agree. We need a private air force, which would be more efficient than an inefficient government one which is just stealing your money via taxes.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM

That could work but you and I know you are just being silly and childish. You think your little games fly but you need to understand most here are better educated than you believe.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Read the part about providing for a common defense and the GENERAL welfare. Also the whole thing about enumerated powers. Start there.

You are the definition of OBTUSE.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

No, I read it. I’ll go read it again to make sure, but it didn’t say anything about an Air Force. So why do we get an Air Force but the government can’t regulate health care? Neither are in the Constitution.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Wow, there’s a great line in there where Jesus Christ says that government funded health care will have death panels. Totally relevant to this discussion!

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

You just keep proving me correct over and over and over……

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM

That could work but you and I know you are just being silly and childish. You think your little games fly but you need to understand most here are better educated than you believe.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I’m not being silly, I’m seriously asking you, and you’re seriously not answering the questions.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM

No, I read it. I’ll go read it again to make sure, but it didn’t say anything about an Air Force. So why do we get an Air Force but the government can’t regulate health care? Neither are in the Constitution.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I already told you why but you choose to play games.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Hey dimwit what does providing for the common defense mean then? Your simplistic responses are quite tiring. It is like talking to a brick wall.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

About as relevant as The Air Force is to the Government taking over 1/6th of America’s Economy. The Air Force was formed for the defense of the Nation. Healthcare Reform is about the subjugation of the Nation. A liberal brought up the subject of Christ’s opinion on Health Care Reform.

kingsjester on September 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Oh and that whole general welfare thing gets brushed aside so easily I noticed.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Hey dimwit what does providing for the common defense mean then?

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Oh, of course! So, then, your argument is that any military buildup authorized is de facto constitutional? Seriously? You want to run with that one?

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Someone needs to read up . The founders wanted us to be defended as a whole while they wanted limited control over the people from a federal level. The would not have believed that a national health care program would have been Constitutional or wise. The lack of knowledge when it comes to the intent of the framers is just amazing. If it is not a lack of knowledge then it is an intentional denial which is worse.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Oh and that whole general welfare thing gets brushed aside so easily I noticed.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM

I was avoiding it because I didn’t want to embarrass you any further.

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.”

-James Madison

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Someone needs to read up .

Someone does.

The founders…would not have believed that a national health care program would have been Constitutional or wise.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

The lack of knowledge when it comes to the intent of the framers is just amazing.

It sure is! You don’t even know how Madison felt about the general welfare clause1

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Oh, also, if you’re going to take the argument that the Constitution doesn’t say health care is a good idea, but you’re also going to argue about the intent of the Framers – well, which is it? Do you take the textual orginalist view or do you claim to know the intent of the Framers? If the latter is the case, you’ll have to find evidence that the Framers didn’t want government regulation of health care somehwhere. Good luck with that.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Oh, of course! So, then, your argument is that any military buildup authorized is de facto constitutional? Seriously? You want to run with that one?

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Yes that is what I said…sarc.

The Air Force was originally part of the Army which was authorized by the Constitution and later through an act of Congress signed by Truman the Air Force became its own entity. So yes it is constitutional. Your question above was another game.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

If the former is the case, you’ll have to explain why you don’t have to have the exact words in the Constitution when it comes to something you like (the Air Force), but you DO have to have to exact words when it comes to something you don’t (health care reform).

Man, your form of constitutional interpretation is awesome! You can just make it say whatever you want! Cool!

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM

The Air Force was originally part of the Army which was authorized by the Constitution and later through an act of Congress signed by Truman the Air Force became its own entity. So yes it is constitutional.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Oh, wow, thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea that the (ch)air force was created via an act of Congress and ergo must be constitutional. I can trace the SCOTUS interpretation of the commerce clause to the point we’re at today and say that health care reform is constitutional too.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

It sure is! You don’t even know how Madison felt about the general welfare clause1

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I did not comment on his view of that clause. There ya go again with those games. Not surprised. Hmm wonder if he would consider giving money to others for health care charity?

For you deny that the framers did not want so much control with the fed is just unbelievable.

Good luck with that.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Oh, wow, thanks for the history lesson.
Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Your welcome. You know you did not know it. Laughable.

Man, your form of constitutional interpretation is awesome! You can just make it say whatever you want! Cool!

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Pot meet kettle

Later.

CWforFreedom on September 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM

For you deny that the framers did not want so much control with the fed is just unbelievable.

No, they only wanted the federal government to have unlimited power with regard to the military and how big it could be.

They weren’t concerned about that kind of thing *at all*.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 11:00 AM

“There is no place in the Constitution”
“There is no place in the Constitution”
“There is no place in the Constitution”

“That specifically says healthcare”

“There is no place in the Constitution”
“There is no place in the Constitution”
“There is no place in the Constitution”

“That specifically says Education”

“There is no place in the Constitution”
“There is no place in the Constitution”
“There is no place in the Constitution”

Pssst LoudMouth,
“There is no place in the Constitution”

Which authorizes the Federal Government to dictate curriculum in the Public schools(education). That’s why the School Boards are locally elected.

What your Govt Healthcare policy intends, is a takeover of Private economic Sector of American’s HealthCare by Govt. bureaucrats. Americans support helping those who are too old or too young to care for themselves. WE DO NOT SUPPORT giving handouts to those who are to dumb or too lazy to purchase their own health insurance.

Congressman Mark Warner is an arrogant thug that needs to be retired ASAP.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 6, 2009 at 11:23 AM

For decades, I’ve been paying private companies for telephones and telephone service without ever knowing I had a right to a government-supplied telephone.
A.) Is there a rebate form available?
B.) Do idiots like Warner ever know what they are talking about?

PoodleSkirt on September 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Warner’s “right to education” argument is just as ludicrous as Obama’s post office comparison. The next question to Warner should have been, “Why do people desperately try to send their kids to private schools?” The answer is, because the public option stinks. And it stinks because the government has decided to engage in social engineering rather than education, which is exactly what they will do with health care and the rationing that will become a necessity.

The situation in Los Angeles is so bad that the moron mayor has decided to place 250 public schools into the hands of private entities in a desperate effort to save them. The private entities exist because the public option is crap.

People don’t think twice about paying for their own auto insurance, without expecting the insurance to cover everything from replacing windshield wipers to new transmissions. It astounds me that they are willing to pay thousands of dollars each year on auto maintenance, in addition to their insurance, but don’t want to pay a penny to maintain their health.

PoodleSkirt on September 6, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Oh, also, if you’re going to take the argument that the Constitution doesn’t say health care is a good idea, but you’re also going to argue about the intent of the Framers – well, which is it? Do you take the textual orginalist view or do you claim to know the intent of the Framers? If the latter is the case, you’ll have to find evidence that the Framers didn’t want government regulation of health care somehwhere. Good luck with that.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Wow! I’m sure you can point to the type of insurance Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used to keep them and their families healthy so long ago, and remind us that it was all part of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution which they wrote into it! Can’t you?

The General Welfare clause was written to allow the federal government to do things which improved the country in the ways in which they were designated by the Constitution to improve it, or to take advantage of new advances in technology or society which improved the welfare of the country OVERALL.

It says nothing about improving the lives of individual citizens over and above the lives of their neighbors and friends. (Note that means citizens, not foreigners) Either the general welfare of all is to be raised or none of our lives are required to be improved by a General Welfare fiat.

Good Health Care is not a right, as is everything else which is “given” to us by human beings who are fallible. It is a privilege which is not to be doled out by the federal government, but a privilege to be EARNED (bought, if you insist on it) by each individual in America. Whatever deal the individual makes is his alone to make. If he chooses to buy it from his employer because they get cheaper rates due to pooling, fine. If he chooses not to buy any insurance at all, but to spend his money on something more important to his health and welfare (like eating, and a roof over his head), then so be it.

But Free Health Care does not mean the federal government may dictate who shall play in the insurance business and who shall not. It does not mean the federal government shall insist on some tax or fee being levied to support a program for which NO BENEFIT is obtained by those taxed! And if you think a rich man gains any benefit from the extra taxes he pays being used to provide free health care for someone not of his choosing, then you are dense. If you think, regardless of what he gains, he must pay it anyway, then you are a tyrant. A tyrant EXACTLY like those rebelled against by the farmers and merchants of the Colonies in 1773.

Our government, if it insists on flying down this path at breakneck speed is headed for its King George III and the English parliament moment. It will not be pretty. It will not be quiet. If our Congresscritters do not start to respond to those so vehemently and overwhelmingly opposed to this and the Cap and Trade, and Illegal Amnesty legislation they are contemplating, then it will be bloody and violent.

American citizens will only take so much tyranny in their own country before they take arms. Men can be pushed only so far. Congress has received its warning, and is acting like it is tone deaf, ignoring the masses while appeasing the press and those currently holding the legislative reins.

They will suffer the consequences of their own actions if they refuse to listen. Wake up, Congress. Your constituents are almost to the point of rebellion. And anyone saying that there is a point beyond which no self respecting American citizen can be pushed and not take up arms makes any and all who deny it ignorant of history, and unfamiliar with basic human nature.

The line is drawn, Congress. Do not cross it.

Subsunk

Subsunk on September 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Oh, also, if you’re going to take the argument that the Constitution doesn’t say health care is a good idea, but you’re also going to argue about the intent of the Framers – well, which is it? Do you take the textual orginalist view or do you claim to know the intent of the Framers? If the latter is the case, you’ll have to find evidence that the Framers didn’t want government regulation of health care somehwhere. Good luck with that.

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

It seems you already provided it:

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.”

-James Madison

Proud Rino on September 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM

So there you go.

You really seem silly enough to imagine we’re going to burst into tears and submit to the slavery of socialized medicine just because you brought up the Air Force? If the Defense Act of 1947 were overturned, then we’d fold the sucker into the Army as the Air Corps, or disperse the squadrons to the Air National Guard as part of the militia. It seemed a useful experiment in defense planning that avoided the serious failures of the Axis in WW2. It was not an act of betrayal of our Constitution, that could allow you to blackmail us into slavery, and only a thug political hack from Chicago would try it. Or his minions.

Chris_Balsz on September 6, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Meh. Just because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause as infinitely elastic does NOT mean that conservatives should not push back on this issue.

If this “ship has sailed” because of stare decisis I guess conservatives should just accept penumbras and stop protesting Roe v. Wade /s

Firefly_76 on September 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Meh. Just because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause as infinitely elastic does NOT mean that conservatives should not push back on this issue.

If this “ship has sailed” because of stare decisis I guess conservatives should just accept penumbras and stop protesting Roe v. Wade /s

Firefly_76 on September 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Such is their hope.

Chris_Balsz on September 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM

When California 23rd District Representative, Lois Capps was asked “What part of the Constitution gives Congress authority to pass National Healthcare Legislation”, Capps responded; “Life Health, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
If anyone didn’t catch this, Capps misquoted the Declaration of Independence; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
When a U.S. Representative CANNOT distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, you KNOW this country is in trouble.
Why did Lois Capps have a town hall meeting on Friday, September 3rd, at the Bethel AME Church in Oxnard CA? Does Capps NOT know that Bethel AFRICAN Methodist-Episcopal Churches are Black Liberation Theology churches, where they follow the teachings of James H Cone and Jeremiah Wright?

By the way, it is Article 1, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that PROHIBITS Congress from passing National Healthcare Legislation, but I don’t expect ANY leftist to know this.

nelsonknows on September 8, 2009 at 12:39 AM

The 9th and 10th Amendments give give people the right to own a telephone, but don’t expect a leftist to know this.
I ADVOCATE ELIMINATING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, THEY ARE BOTH UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

nelsonknows on September 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM

Tort reform also violates the Constitution, in particular, the 7th Amendment.

nelsonknows on September 8, 2009 at 12:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4