Leahy: No one questions our authority to impose federal insurance mandate
posted at 12:55 pm on October 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Constitution? What Constitution? Patrick Leahy either feigns ignorance or demonstrates it when questioned about the authority for the federal government to mandate the purchase of health insurance. CNS News captures this moment of either forced or natural obtuseness by the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee (via The College Politico on Twitter):
Q: I just want to know where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
LEAHY: What — we have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
Q: I’m asking –
LEAHY: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.
Q: But where — I mean, which –
LEAHY: Where do we have authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
Q: Well, the states do that.
LEAHY: No, no, the federal government does that.
Well, actually, they don’t set those limits now, although they did in the past. The answer to that question is that the federal government built the interstate highway system, and that Americans have the option to use them or not. The government does not make driving on these highways mandatory, nor does it make the purchase of gasoline (which has a federal tax component) mandatory, either.
In fact, plenty of people question whether the Constitution allows the federal government the authority to mandate any kind of purchase. It gives C0ngress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but that wouldn’t apply at all — because the federal government blocks the interstate sale of health insurance at the moment.
At least a few people have been asking this question for months. Apparently, Senator Leahy is a little too busy in his ivory tower to listen.
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 Next »
The picture makes it all worth it.
KingGold on October 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Seriously, if cops are required to take a limited Constitutional law course, why isn’t Congress?
Meric1837 on October 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM
The idea that he works for a government of limited powers just never crossed his mind.
LibertarianRepublican on October 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Mr. Leahy, there’s only so many times you can kick a dog before he chews your leg off.
jimmy2shoes on October 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
How dare you serfs question your masters!
rbj on October 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Was Leahy asleep during the “Federal $ and mandatory national speed limit” wars? Quite a few state vs. fed struggles over that one.
cs89 on October 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Too bad we don’t tar and feather anymore.
rplat on October 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Here’s the sense I get… Leahy and the Democrats speak as though THEY are the government. They are a permanent entity. They don’t speak as thought they are only elected representatives, there one term at a time to function as the Constitution dictates.
Term limits would solve that attitude problem.
mankai on October 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Asked in another thread – What, exactly, can government -not- force you to do under this line of thought?
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM
All your everything are belong to us.
LibTired on October 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Where’s Joker’s “disappearing pencil trick” when you need it?
eforhan on October 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Guys,
He has more important things to do like hold hearings about baseball and demonizing oil executives and stuff.
C’mon.
Joe Caps on October 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM
The questioner never said there was no authority. He asked the senator to point out where the authority was in the Constitution.
Nice redirect, Patty. You blockhead.
Dominion on October 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said such action is PROHIBITED.
dogsoldier on October 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM
ROGUE
GOVERNMENT
Skywise on October 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM
F*ck off, Leahy. :P
NathanG on October 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Senator Leahy – an astounding mediocrity.
Congress is like the closing scene in Amadeus, when Salieri is wandering about the nuthouse.
Worthless, stupid, incompetent jackasses and the American people only have themselves to blame for electing scum like Leahy.
NoDonkey on October 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I love that movie! One of the best ever. Just plain old good vs. evil entertainment.
NathanG on October 22, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Leahy is one of the truly moronic people in the senate. IQ probably around 75.
jaime on October 22, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Um, yeah.
I am fairly young and I remember talking with my dad about this when I was like 13 years old.
So, as a 13 year old, I was able to comprehend and understand how they made that work but apparently a member of congress was not.
Joe Caps on October 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Where on earth did that screen cap come from?
BadgerHawk on October 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Can always count on Senator Depends for an idiotic statement.
JamesLee on October 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Godd ol’ “Leaky” Leahy. Stupid on a stick.
kingsjester on October 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Please, for the love of God voters, HAVE ENOUGH SENSE TO VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2010! I’m sick of this sh!t.
NathanG on October 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Godd=Good
oops
kingsjester on October 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM
If the US Supreme Court upheld the McCarran-Ferguson Act, in which Congress authorized the states to regulate insurance, then the US Congress has the power to regulate insurance under the US Constitution. Also see United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), where the US Supreme Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v. Virginia.
Jimbo3 on October 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM
And Vermont loves this idiot!!
jeanie on October 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Prediction… Ed Morrissey will be accused of threatening to kill Senator Leahy before the day is through…
al sends
afterdarknesslight on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
No, actually Vermonters are responsible for electing this goober. They one uped themselves by electing that a$$hole Bernie Sanders.
I had a great-aunt from Vermont. She was as weird as all get out.
NathanG on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I remember South Dakota had to raise its drinking age to 21 to get federal highway funds. They had a 3.2 beer at 19 law that kept the college kids satisfied.
That the feds can attach strings to money doesn’t necessarily mean that a state can’t turn down the funds.
Wethal on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
No question that when/if Obamacare passes there will be multiple legal challenges to several provisions in it.
muggedbyreality on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Why so serious?
Joe Caps on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Doesn’t the federal government already require some people to buy flood insurance?
Mark1971 on October 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM
These treasonous freaks should be in prison. They are a clear danger to our republic.
marklmail on October 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I always understood the STATES regulated the drinking age, and the speed limit, but the Feds passed laws saying, make it 21 years old and 65 mph, or else disqualify your state for federal highway funding. And the states liked the money.
Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Ed .. Ed .. Ed .. the federal government doesn’t have the authority to set national speed limits.
It does have the power to extort the states into setting the limits or they won’t get new federal funds.
J_Crater on October 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Yep they can regulate it all over the place because some insurances do cross state lines. However, there has never been a ruling about the Fed forcing individuals to buy insurance in the first place. Apples to Gooseberry’s.
Johnnyreb on October 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I’d be willing to bet Leahy was asleep when “Schoohouse” Rock featured I’m just a Bill.
highhopes on October 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM
LEAHY: Who said that? Off with his head!!! Uh-Oh, did I say that out loud?
kam582 on October 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM
75 is triple what Feinstein brings to the table.
She could be replaced by an Irish Setter and it would be an improvement in both looks and intellect.
NoDonkey on October 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM
That’s cool, Jimbo. So the government can also regulate cars, but can they force me to buy one? They can also regulate toothpaste, but can they force me to buy it? They can also regulate drugs, but can they force me to buy them? They can also regulate ________, but can they force me to buy _______? …..
Way to completely miss the point!
Joe Caps on October 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM
FL has interstate speed limits at 70, so do other states. Drinking ages vary by state as well.
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Leahy: Why glorious communism gives us the authorty comrade.
darwin on October 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM
That leads to the federal government having the authority to force people to purchase insurance even if they don’t want it? You and Leahy are definitely on the same mental plane.
jaime on October 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I was wondering about the individual mandate the other day. If this is indeed not settled law, as I suspect, are there methods for a temporary injunction to halt legislation deemed to be Unconstitutional? Can the Supreme Court be asked for an opinion on the matter?
Any lawyers out there that can answer this question for me?
NickelAndDime on October 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Actually the Federal Government never seta National Speed limit. They made receiving 10% of a states federal highway funds contigent on the State setting the speed limit at 55. They also required evidence of enforcement to get the funds.
Any State could have told the Feds to keep the 10% and set the speed limit at what ever speed they wanted. It’s the same thing with the 21 year old legal drinking age. A state can lower it to 18 or 19 but it would forfeit some its federal funds.
jerryofva on October 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
What a moron!
becki51758 on October 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
The Feds can’t even mandate the Blood Alcohol Limit. They have to threaten withdrawl of highway funds in order to get the State Legislatures to pass laws that comply.
rock the casbah on October 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
It’s that damn Maggie Gyllenhaal’s fault. The Joker was about to slice up Leahy when she interrupted.
Doughboy on October 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
If they do (I don’t know anything about this), it is most likely for certain people in certain areas. They could probably move and not have to buy it.
This individual mandate taxes/fines/whatevers you for merely existing as a US citizen.
Joe Caps on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
NathanG on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
But Leahy is only one in a series of complete and utter disasters serving in Congress.
Face it, at least close to a majority of Americans in a series of states voted for these clowns.
How long can our republic stand people electing total asses to high positions?
NoDonkey on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
J_Crater on October 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
They did the same with the minimum drinking age during the Reagan years.
So Leahy is effectively correct. When you take the man’s money, don’t complain when he wants more than a kiss.
eforhan on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Not sure on the Fed aspect of that, but I went through that with my shop. Seems there is a storm drain cutting on the very corner of the property, and about 10 feet of the parking lot is in the “Hundred Year Flood Plain.”
Went round and round, as I am only renting the place, but the bottom line was there was a note on the property, and the bank required it, much like a bank requires full coverage on a car note or mortgage.
The new property owner went through the same fiasco I did, in that I was quoted one price for required coverage, paid the bill, then OOOPPPSS! we screwed up the quote, gimme three times as much! He then chose to pay a survey/engineering firm to have it removed from the flood maps.
JamesLee on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Rememeber to vote in 2010 and 2012……These are the guys representing you and me and also taking money from us every week. I am really tired of paying for things I don’t want! How about you?
BigMike252 on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
ENOUGH!
I’m thinking that Bastille Day is on the horizon…..
;-)
rabidamerican on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I question it Mr. Leahy, and I vote!
Fighton03 on October 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I don’t believe so, but good luck getting a home in a flood zone if you don’t have it.
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM
If they can regulate insurance, they can regulate ancillary activities or requirements related to insurance. That would include an individual mandate.
The government could force you to buy toothpaste or to buy drugs. Right now, the federal government prohibits you from purchasing unapproved or illegal drugs in this country and the customs laws (passed by Congress) prohibit you from bringing in certain drugs into this country.
Jimbo3 on October 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Well, nobody except me, my high school age daughter (who asked about this yesterday in her AP-USH class), and anyone with a cursory knowledge of the US Constitution and history.
LASue on October 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Yep, and the science is settled too…
Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Whoa Jimbo. The logic is stunning here. Supreme Court (Judiciary) upheld States right to regulate insurance, egro Federal Gov’t can force us to buy insurance? Wow, just, wow.
NickelAndDime on October 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I’m sure all of the legal questions concerning this can be solved by Sotomeyor hallucinating something out of thin air.
She can use Roe v. Wade as precedent.
“This is legal because I think it’s good and I’m a wise Latina. Have a tamale and STFU.”
NoDonkey on October 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Excellent. Maybe it could tell us to take 3-minute showers too.
Is there anything that the government -can’t- force us to do?
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM
wow, you have a very…. interesting… view on the relationship between the People, and the Federal Government… as defined by the Contract between them, known as the Constitution.
Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM
This is a man, I could never respect. With that striped suit, he looks like mafia. Hence forth, I shall forever refer to him, as Leather face Leahy!
capejasmine on October 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Jimbo3 on October 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I haven’t seen a leap like that since Evel Kneivel try to jump the Snake River Canyon. That didn’t work, either.
kingsjester on October 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Why does he even think the Federal Government sets speed limits? The federal government refuses to give highway funds unless the states change it but the states set the actual limit. If this is his analogy then what is his response to states who refuse any funds related to health care?
Rocks on October 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM
It is rather interesting what we’ve learned the past 9 months about the power of government, and the role leftists thinks it plays in their lives, haven’t we?
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM
try=tried
oops
kingsjester on October 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM
FHA loans?
NickelAndDime on October 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Careful, Obama may decide to “create” some new jobs.
Federal Shower Monitors armed with stop watches.
NoDonkey on October 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I deserved this.
NickelAndDime on October 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Many Dems want to try and pervert the General Welfare clause to support their desire for massive federal expansion. They are either ignorant of the meaning of the clause themselves or are hoping that enough Americans are ignorant of it that they can get away with using it for pushing their unconstitutional agenda. James Madison said of the GW clause:
I’d like to see this debated on Fox! Put the Dems on the spot and make them back up their perverted assertions.
DerKrieger on October 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Yeah, just like many other things… they use the power of the purse to Coerce you into doing what they want…
Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I question the federal government’s authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance.
Senator Leahy says nobody questions that authority.
Therefore, I am nobody. Thanks for the compliment, Senator!
Given that the number of votes cast in many U.S. cities exceeded the number of registered voters, a lot of nobodies vote. Senator Leahy should keep that in mind.
Steve Z on October 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Interesting argument, and good info in your first post, but I don’t buy it. At all.
Under that line of reasoning the government could force an individual to do anything, as long as they regulated some aspect related to that action.
I don’t have to buy a car, just because the government regulates vehicle crash standards and speed limits.
BadgerHawk on October 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM
No, but a lot of banks won’t give you a mortgage in certain areas without it. My homeowners insurance mandates that I can’t have a trampoline. If I have a problem with this, I can alway be insured by someone else. Of course what the government wants is for us to have no choices, so they can dictate every aspect of our lives.
On a side note, only 381 more days until the 2010 mid term elections.
Tommy_G on October 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
In fact, Jimbo, that I find that argument to be insulting to the very foundations of individual liberty on which the nation was founded.
BadgerHawk on October 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I heard Feinstein in a Committee hearing a few years ago – when the same Federal authority question was raised – and she responded with what seemed genuine astonishment [approx.] “You don’t mean to say you think there are areas the Federal government doesn’t have the authority to legislate in, do you…”
eeyore on October 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
His inability to provide a coherent, rational answer is an answer in itself: the Federal Government has no such authority. If it did, he would have been able to cite the source of that authority.
mr.blacksheep on October 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I always thought the Federal Government mandated the speed limit by withholding federal highway funds from states that did not enforce the prescribed limit. A few years ago, Wyoming decided that the funds weren’t worth it and raised the limits. Others soon followed suit.
Kafir on October 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Civil disobedience coupled with logical explanations of how small abuses of power grow into large tyrannies is going to be the answer to this eventually.
They will learn that they do not have untrammeled portfolios.
Nobody questions that.
Horatius on October 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I contacted Leahy’s office and advised he read up on the constitution. Contact him here. This is the cocky arrogance of a man safe in his “ivory tower” as Ed put it. He’ll easily be re-elected to his 7th term in the US Senate in 2010. Don’t let this scourge go unanswered. Use your anger and e-mail, call the scumbag. There really is no other alternative.
RepubChica on October 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM
“No one expects a Senate Inquisition!” – Cardinal Leahy
NoDonkey on October 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Those are called Drill Sergeants at Basic Training, before that Army got all nice with its new recruits. 60 seconds in a mass shower bay. Don’t drop the soap!
BadgerHawk on October 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Slight nit-pick…The federal constitution is a contract between the states to create a federal government.
WashJeff on October 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I really wish this guy would take Cheney’s suggestion on how he could entertain himself.
Aviator on October 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM
This should be sufficient to get this horse’s a$$ removed from the Senate. Of course, dems are traitors to the US, so this just enhances his stature with the left.
Note to Leahy: The federal government only managed to build the interstate highway system as a defense project. Defense is one of the few actual responsibilities that the federal government has. And the federal government only forced speed limits on the interstates by threatening the states with funding, not by having any direct power to set those speed limits. The federal government used highway funds to bully the states into doing lots of other things that had nothing to do with highways or roads or anything connected (like the legal drinking age), which is why spending by the federal government is supposed to be hgihly restricted, whether the government wants to pay for something or not. We saw a starker example of this lesson in the forcing of states to accept the un-Constitutional Porkulus money, which was one of the lowest points our nation has ever reached. Ever.
So, a bastardized federal government is now fully inhabited by bastards, and led by a (literally) ineligible bastard from Indonesia. Yep …
progressoverpeace on October 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Google “National Maximum Speed Law,” 1974-1995.
But yeah, $ was the tool used to force compliance.
cs89 on October 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Steny Hoyer was quoted yesterday as saying it’s the “general welfare” clause. HIS analogy of a limit would be, if Congress mandated you buy a GM car, instead of mandating a car purchase and you chose what model.
So yeah, they’re nuts.
Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM
See you at the Supreme Court when they’re deciding against you and your ignorant and corrupt cronies Patrick. They have absolutely no authority for an individual insurance purchase mandate. Anyone who thinks they do are nuts off their rocker and drunken with power.
The only mandate Patrick and his group of thugs needs is a mandatory retirement in 2010.
Griz on October 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM
That’s one of the perversions of our tax system. The federal government takes money from a state’s residents and then rewards or punishes the states by giving or withholding money that was taken from that state’s residents in the first place.
If the tax system weren’t upside down our state rates would be higher than our federal rates and the states would take of themselves.
DerKrieger on October 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Good luck with that. Supremes couldn’t even correctly rule on the first amendment and CFR.
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Indeed that is what is happening, which is why they say they can limit pay, force people to give up their land, speed limits, taxes, etc.
All they need is a federal judge to go along with the “six degrees of separation” legal theory and everything is related to everything else.
right2bright on October 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Senator Depends.
JammieWearingFool on October 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Civil disobedience coupled with logical explanations of how
Thing me, and my son, await…
The Constitution is a contract, between the Fed Gov, the States, and the People… when a contract is abrogated by one party, it is no longer valid…
I look for States to try to reasert their Rights under the Constitution… and then the People to do the same…
How this plays out, either in the Legal, or Political arenas… or… as may very well happen, in a physical arena… will have a huge impact on the future of our country.
Problem is that the Repubs are not even bringing up the proper questions… ie… What is the Nature of our current Government, and does it still follow the Contract we made with it?
Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I’m curious.
In order to produce maximum economic growth at a time of recession, why doesn’t the government mandate we all buy stuff. Everything is regulated in some sense, therefore they can force us to buy it.
Economic growth is just a flick of the wrist away.
lorien1973 on October 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
FYI:
1). http://volokh.com/2009/09/20/does-a-federal-mandate-requiring-the-purchase-of-health-insurance-exceed-congress-powers-under-the-commerce-clause.
2). http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20091021.html.
3). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1334955
4). http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/08/the-constitutionality-of-the-current-health-care-proposal.html.
5). http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky6-2009oct06,0,6904553,print.story.
I haven’t found any lawyers/law professors other than Rivkin and Casey who think there is any serious question about its constitutionality. See the links above.
Jimbo3 on October 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Case in point is free speech and the McCain/Feingold bill…
right2bright on October 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »