Pelosi: Constitutionality of individual mandates not “serious” question

posted at 1:36 pm on October 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

First Patrick Leahy scoffed at questions over whether the federal government has the authority to order Americans to buy a particular product, even though that has never happened in our 233-year history, and now the Speaker of the House claims that the question is “not serious.” CNS News has the audio of Nancy Pelosi providing the Democratic dodge on the constitutionality question:

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.”

Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer.  Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer.  After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority.  It’s not exactly a lengthy document.  How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?

Well, as it turns out, pretty darned difficult.  The interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply because Congress doesn’t allow for interstate commerce in health insurance.  The “general welfare” clause has never applied to individual mandates, which is why neither Leahy or Pelosi will invoke it publicly.  If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless — and by extension, makes the Supreme Court meaningless as well.  Good luck getting them to buy into that policy.


Related Posts:

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

If these two laws were inacted; how much taxpayer money would be saved and how much better would our goverment serve us?

Franklyn on October 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Something like that would be great.
Can you imagine the changes that would come to life if our representatives were elected on the basis of substance and competency over style and image?

Right now its more of popularity contest, and once you’re in, the other members of “the club” help you keep the job and benefits….as long as you don’t rock the boat.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM

The Constitution’s meaning has been expanded and extended so much that many don’t see its implicit fiscal limits as really existing. Anything can get run-around. I mean, the train already left the station with Social Security and Medicare; this isn’t much different. All you have to do is to say that these are functionally income taxes (since presumably those earning no income will be eligible for enough government help to offset the costs), and that the mandate is to pay, not to seek any specific medical care. Of course, the lawyers will say that to the courts after the politicians have told the public that they’re not taxes.

calbear on October 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I like this line of attack.

JohnGalt23 on October 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I just sent the following message to http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Maybe if enough people ask, she’ll realize it’s a serious question.

malclave on October 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM

“The Constitution was never meant to be the only set of laws that we follow. I had a blue dress when I was five, but I can’t wear it because it doesn’t fit me anymore. There are lots of things that change over time and you have a whole bunch of legislation enacted every day, every month, every year that adjusts and calibrates to the times and to the issues…what is perceived to be the best thing for the American people…and these are called laws, and, you know, I think they’ve been doing a pretty good job.”

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, April, 1997.

These people really think this way, like they’re royalty or something.

Socratease on October 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Tack on a senator may serve no more than six consecutive years in the senate (or even in total).

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I don’t think you would need to. As the State Governors and Legislatures turned over… which happens MUCH faster than the current Congress, they’d appoint their own folks…

Could you see, for instance… The Governator keeping the old Govs guy?

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Interesting. The recall power is much greater than the power to install. That lack of power to recall is a weak point we have for our federal positions. People don’t do real damage until they are already in office, so the recall power is the most important one to hold a feral government at bay. The only problem is the expense and time-consuming nature of special elections that make arbitrary recalls of popularly elected positions (not the Senate positions as you have detailed) a bit difficult. There are elegant solutions to this problem, but that would take us into the deep reeds, a bit.

I like your amendment.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM

I like this line of attack.

JohnGalt23 on October 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM

It’s been all over Hotair comment threads since the first day this monstrosity of national socialized health care was first discussed and it was a main feature of the Tea Parties and Town Halls.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Then we disagree on that point.
Do you think its within the constitution to make sure your surgeon meets certain standards or should the learning institution that certifies him or her be able to set its own standards?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM

No it is not. Such licensing is a state responsibility. Regardless, such licensing can easily be handled without govt intervention.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM

However, if you want to watch TV you’re going to need either a cable with a digital converter box or a digital to analog converter box because the government made so you have to. That was my only point.

rollthedice on October 23, 2009 at 2:14 PM

As it has always been since TV’s inception, to watch TV, you must first acquire a TV. On your dime. If you acquire an old analog TV you’ll need a digital converter. On your dime. If you acquire a digital TV, your good to go. On your dime. If you don’t want to do this, you don’t have to have TV. I’ve known several people who lived without TV as their own choice.

BUT, under this mandate, you have no choice. Buy insurance or the Gov’t will penalize you with a tax. Don’t pay the tax, and Gov’t will throw your a$$ in jail and seize your property.

Sorry, your arguement is BS.

Phil-351 on October 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I agree with that. Are Credit Unions mandated to be FDIC insured? I have no idea.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

As from above, no. But the US Government got around this by creating the Federal Reserve as a stand-alone corporation that regulates the banks. So it’s not unconstitutional per se.

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM

If no food products cross state lines, I agree.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Why should that make a difference?

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM

A bad broadcast can’t cause a food-borne illness outbreak and infect people who haven’t even watched it? (although it might cause mass stupidity…)

Dark-Star on October 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM

1) Even with massive federal regulation, such outbreaks still occur. Adjusting for improvements in technology, such outbreaks are no more serious than they were before the fed got involved.
2) Why is state level regulation insufficient?

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Technically, Congress still has the power to regulate insurance.

Jimbo3 on October 23, 2009 at 3:11 PM

OK, fine. I’m not an insurance company. Where in the hell does it get off legislating that I exist in such manner?

anuts on October 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM

If such abstractions can be method and reason, then the opposite could be argued. If there are no similarities or consistencies, then anything goes.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM

That is the ultimate result of the position that you have taken.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

If no food products cross state lines, I agree.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Why should that make a difference?

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Yea… as long as it is clearly labeled as to origin (which would easily fall under Regulation of Interstate commerce)… and you have the ability to SUE either the State (for a lack of standards) or the person who grew the food who didn’t follow said states standards?

Self correcting problem.

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

The problem with the argument against individual mandates is Social Security and Medicare. Both are systems that could be provided by private businesses and are, yet we’ve accepted them as constitutional for lo these many years. I’ve always thought of Social Security as a pyramid scheme, and I consider it unconstitutional, but legally it’s a tough argument to make because of these precedents.

I think the 10th Amendment makes it clear that such expansive readings of the Commerce Clause power shouldn’t be allowed, because you shouldn’t interpret one part of the document in a way that renders another part invalid.

flataffect on October 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM

I got to tell Hoyer that he sucks, in person, a few weeks back. It was awesome. He just smirked and kept walking.

No retort – mind you.

Joe Caps on October 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

You are my hero!

gary4205 on October 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM

That said, do the states have nation wide standards they have to incorporate or can they just make up their own?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM

That’s the whole notion behind federalism. To let each state do it their own way, letting the best solution percolate to the top.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Technically, Congress still has the power to regulate insurance.

Jimbo3 on October 23, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Er …. no. Congress has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of insurance. And regulation of the interstate commerce of the industry doesn’t include any mandate on individuals.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM

I agree with that. Are Credit Unions mandated to be FDIC insured? I have no idea.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

FDIC no.
FSLC yes.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM

–I think if it’s Constitutional to require you to perform 60 hours of services or pay a fine in a non-economic setting, then it’s difficult to argue that you can’t be forced to either buy something or be fined in an economic setting. You have the choice between buying the product, which is alot less burdensome than working on roads for sixty hours, or paying the fine (or tax).

Jimbo3 on October 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Which is why I say its vulnerable to a 4th and 8th Amendment challenge. Because you understand up front, this is a penalty, this is a punitive slam, the citizen who erred must be punished pour encourager les autres.

BUT — you do it without any hearing or trial. No due process, and the punishment is certainly unusual, a tax bill–nondischargeable in bankruptcy, allowing for a lien on wages– for something unrelated to taxes.

Administrative burdens, costs, penalties, fees, are common in federal service–but not as punishment, but as consideration for something of value to the government. Nothing like that here.

And another vulnerability–the government is clear that some insurance plans that citizens buy are not up to grade, so that opens the mandate to a challenge that the citizen is being administratively punished for the failure of a third party.

Chris_Balsz on October 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM

“from the govt” not “to the govt”

Chris_Balsz on October 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM

anuts on October 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM

I must also add that I disagree with your premise. And that I also think it’s unfortunate to use the word ‘technically’ when speaking about enumerated powers. The word should be ‘literally’ or nothing.

anuts on October 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Er …. no. Congress has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of insurance.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM

And that is regulation only to the extent of making such commerce regular, not being able to impose any arbitrary set of rules on it that the feral government wants.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM

The problem with the argument against individual mandates is Social Security and Medicare.

flataffect on October 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Actualy, there was a very good chance these were going to be deemed UnConstitutional… and the President at the time threatened to use Congress to expand the ranks of the Supreme Court past 9… and appoint people who would find it Constitutional.

but once again… this was in the 1900 – 1937 timeframe, when IMO the country went nuts and pretty much destroyed the idea of a limited Federal Government…

But then, they also believed in Eugenics during this period…. so….

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Could you see, for instance… The Governator keeping the old Govs guy?

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

If he needed the approval of the states congress to dump the old Govs guy, he may have no choice but to keep him.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM

That’s the whole notion behind federalism. To let each state do it their own way, letting the best solution percolate to the top other states.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Don’t ever want a single “solution” for all states coming from the top. From the side? Yes. Top? Nope.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 3:44 PM

No informed, moral person doesn’t think that all of the health care bills are unconstitutional. By proposing them, BO is commiting treason. And he knows it.

proconstitution on October 23, 2009 at 3:44 PM

“Constitutionality of individual mandates not “serious” question”

That’s OK. Nancy pelosi is not a serious Speaker of the House.

2010. 2010. 2010. 2010. 2010. 2010. 2010. 2010……..
.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM

FIRED UP!

clap clap

THEY’VE GOT TO GO!!

FIRED UP!

clap clap

THEY’VE GOT TO GO!!

FIRED UP!

clap clap

THEY’VE GOT TO GO!!
.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM

feral government wants.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I like it, good work pop

thomasaur on October 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM

and you have the ability to SUE either the State (for a lack of standards) or the person who grew the food who didn’t follow said states standards?

Self correcting problem.

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

I don’t think you should be able to sue the state for having a lack of standards. Under such a rule, all states would be quickly forced to adopt the strictest possible, CYA regulations, to protect themselves against being sued.

If you believe another states standards are too lax, then don’t buy any products from that state. Simple enough.

Suing someone for not following the existing standards is reasonable.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM

If he needed the approval of the states congress to dump the old Govs guy, he may have no choice but to keep him.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Yeah, but they’d still only serve for 6 years at a crack… sooooo unless the same Gov was there six years later, I doubt he’d get reappointed…

I think it would end up like Ambasadors are… Lots of turnover… with a few good people being retained…

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Good point..

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Licenses to practice medicine is one thing. Licenses to grow apples and sell them is another.

I’m saying food production (produce, meat, dairy, etc) should work like ISO approved companies. If you have government certification you a> get the approval and b> can provide food to the military and government businesses/schools, etc. If you don’t you’re free to sell to anyone who wants it WITHOUT the sticker.
This is all about money and control. You’ll note there’s no license to sell pot and it’s illegal to grow and sell and yet… there’s no shortage of it.

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 3:20 PM

You can grow and sell an apple with no problem. You can even buy locally grown meat at flea markets. If you’re going to grind up whole fields of cows and sell what comes out of the other end of the grinder..you really need to have some regulated standards imo.
This is not the same as practicing medicine. An apple is pretty much an apple. Removing that same apple from your lung is another thing. You really have to know what you’re doing to do that.

Its not all about money and control. Its about public health too.

I don’t understand what your getting at with the pot analogy. Raw supply and demand has nothing to do with standards of food safety or standards of proficiency in advanced skills like medicine or making your own car to be sold to the general public, for that matter imo.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Don’t ever want a single “solution” for all states coming from the top. From the side? Yes. Top? Nope.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 3:44 PM

That’s what the phrase means. Something that has percolated to the top is visible to all. It doesn’t mean that there is an entity at the top that will now impose the “percolated” solution on everyone.

To use another analogy, think of cream rising to the top.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM

If you’re going to grind up whole fields of cows and sell what comes out of the other end of the grinder..you really need to have some regulated standards imo.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Whether there needs to be a standard is a personal decision. If you don’t want to buy from a producer who doesn’t follow the standards that you approve of. Then don’t.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Thanks.
I wonder if FSLC is facing the same crunch as FDIC?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM

crash72 on October 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Perhaps someone should ask, “Who’s” Constitution is he a Scholar of?

DSchoen on October 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM

That’s the whole notion behind federalism. To let each state do it their own way, letting the best solution percolate to the top.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I wonder how would that work for things like medical and surgical procedures and R&D for medicines?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM

If you believe another states standards are too lax, then don’t buy any products from that state. Simple enough.

Suing someone for not following the existing standards is reasonable.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM

What if that producer is just one bad apple out of a mostly good state?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I wonder how would that work for things like medical and surgical procedures and R&D for medicines?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM

The best get rich and the other want to learn from them.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Why should that make a difference?

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM

My state doesn’t want your apples.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM

What if that producer is just one bad apple out of a mostly good state?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM

First, hopefully the marketplace shuts them down.

Second, a trade association rats them out as a bad apple,

Third, State AG should do something about it: fine them, shut them down, etc.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Thanks.
I wonder if FSLC is facing the same crunch as FDIC?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM

I’m pretty certain that I did not get the acronym right, and I don’t believe that they are facing as big a problem. The savings and loans got bailed out 20 years ago or so and I don’t think they’ve had enough time to get themselves in deep doo again.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM

I wonder how would that work for things like medical and surgical procedures and R&D for medicines?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Why wouldn’t it work?

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I’m pretty certain that I did not get the acronym right, and I don’t believe that they are facing as big a problem. The savings and loans got bailed out 20 years ago or so and I don’t think they’ve had enough time to get themselves in deep doo again.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM

I think it’s the FSLIC and I don’t think it’s still around? (Wasn’t it dissolved after the savings and loan debacle?)

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 4:05 PM

What if that producer is just one bad apple out of a mostly good state?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Then sue the producer. You have the same problem with federal regulation. You have no way of knowing whether each and every company is following procedures.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:05 PM

My state doesn’t want your apples.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM

It’s not up to your state to decide who you buy your apples from, it’s up to you.
If you don’t want to buy apples from a particular state, then don’t.

Regulation is always a trade off between cost and effectiveness. You can always apply more regulations to acquire a little more safety, but it costs money to implement the regulations.

Under state level regulation, each state tries to find it’s own balance. You as a consumer determine whether you want cheaper apples, or safer apples. You decide where you want the trade off to be.
Each state competes with the others to find the maximum safety with the minimum cost. The states that find the best balance, will be copied by the others.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:09 PM

No it is not. Such licensing is a state responsibility. Regardless, such licensing can easily be handled without govt intervention.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Licensing and standards are two different things.
But I kinda agree with your idea of letting the most effective methods perc to the top. It would seem that all liability issues for ill effects would have to be off the table of recource of the individual choosing the service..a buyer beware being the rule.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:10 PM

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM

I think the credit unions are watch by the NCUA.

We need more acronyms. I think engineers have been out doned by politicians in creating acronyms.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I don’t understand what your getting at with the pot analogy. Raw supply and demand has nothing to do with standards of food safety or standards of proficiency in advanced skills like medicine or making your own car to be sold to the general public, for that matter imo.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Then you don’t care about the safety/standards of pot quality in the US?

That’s my point… what are we really talking about here… “safety” or “control”?

Back to the apple analogy, you think it’s ok to sell 1 apple without government intervention. 100 apples is okay and maybe even 1000… but 10,000… oh no, that requires government oversight.

I agree with licensing of doctors because there are too many people out there who will happily saw your arm off for a fast buck and call it medicine. But otherwise, caveat emptor.

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM

thomasaur on October 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Thanks, thomasaur. “Feral government” is my new thing. It is amazing how the English language seems to be so well-prepared for accurate and descriptive puns to describe this horror of a government.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 4:14 PM

I agree with licensing of doctors because there are too many people out there who will happily saw your arm off for a fast buck and call it medicine. But otherwise, caveat emptor.

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Tonsil removal pays better.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM

True.
However, if you want to watch TV you’re going to need either a cable with a digital converter box or a digital to analog converter box because the government made so you have to. That was my only point.
rollthedice on October 23, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Not to overstate the obvious but the “key” to this is “your post”.

Specificallyif you want” which is significantly different from “You will buy” regardless if you want it or not.

And yes some states require folks to have insurance to drive!

True, and that’s what the “STATES” want. State governments ARE NOT the Federal Government, look up the 10th amendment.

DSchoen on October 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM

It’s not up to your state to decide who you buy your apples from, it’s up to you.
If you don’t want to buy apples from a particular state, then don’t.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:09 PM

My state..vested with the power of the people.. have ruled that they will only allow apples grown in state to be sold. Its a kinda rebel state.
( I’m just playing with thought exercises here)

I see what you mean and like most things in reality they can only apply to certain things and up to a certain point.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I agree with licensing of doctors because there are too many people out there who will happily saw your arm off for a fast buck and call it medicine. But otherwise, caveat emptor.

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Translation: unless/until somebody does a hidden-camera investigation on the corners being cut in the name of the almighty bottom line, the fox will be guarding the henhouse on everything you eat or drink.

As part of the culinary arts program @ my college, I’m currently taking a sanitation class, with a teacher who works with the local extension department. The horror stories she has for us – as well as those my classmates shared (many work/worked in the foodservice industry) – I can tell you right now that having NO federal oversight of the food industry is not a wise idea in the slightest.

Dark-Star on October 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

My state..vested with the power of the people.. have ruled that they will only allow apples grown in state to be sold. Its a kinda rebel state.
( I’m just playing with thought exercises here)

I see what you mean and like most things in reality they can only apply to certain things and up to a certain point.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:18 PM

And your State Gov could, Constitutionaly do that (depending on their State Const.)… but… there aint many Apples grown here in Colorado… so it would not last long once the people figured out that Apples were not only reallllyyyy expensive, but unavailable at any price for much of the time…

And thus, they would soon get different leaders, who would change those laws…

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM

……. the feral government wants.
progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Heh, was that a typo, a Freudian slip, or completely intentional?

Whichever; I love it, and am going to start using it.

LegendHasIt on October 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM

LegendHasIt on October 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Yes, the Feral Government, run by the Precedent….

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM

The American people (sheeple) have long grown accustomed to being pulled over on the highways for a myriad of reasons (or no reason) by an armed underclass with high school educations…accustomed to having to have every damn thing they do licensed and taxed by bureaucrats at the behest of politicians…accustomed to cowering before the IRS as it removes our wealth and places liens on our property at will…accustomed to being ignored by politicians, bullied by judges and various “public servants” and HOA Nazis…accustomed to being fired or possibly fired due to the whim of someone who controls their paycheck or sleeps with or plays golf with someone who does…threatened with frivolous lawsuits, but rarely able to find justice for our real injuries…

It’s a perfect set up and the Communists know how good they’ve got it. It only takes a little “nudging” as Mr. Beck points out to herd us into the pens. Don’t even need to keep fresh batteries in the prods anymore.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM

and you have the ability to SUE either the State (for a lack of standards) or the person who grew the food who didn’t follow said states standards?

Self correcting problem.

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

With all the bureaucracy needed to track and enforce that, you’ll end up with what we have now, or a six or one half dozen of the other.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:25 PM

LegendHasIt on October 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM

My explanation for it was on the last page. Here is how I came to it:

The Constitution is the restraint that domesticated the federal government. Without that restraint, our federal government has reverted to a barbaric, natural state.

We now have a FERAL GOVERNMENT, and all the threats and dangers that entails.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM

As part of the culinary arts program @ my college, I’m currently taking a sanitation class, with a teacher who works with the local extension department. The horror stories she has for us – as well as those my classmates shared (many work/worked in the foodservice industry) – I can tell you right now that having NO federal oversight of the food industry is not a wise idea in the slightest.

Dark-Star on October 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

I’m all for VOLUNTARY government oversight to get a “certified by the USDA” sticker or its equivalent.

But as it stands, you’ll note that your teacher can tell you all those horror stories while there already is Federal government oversight.

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 4:30 PM

First, hopefully the marketplace shuts them down.

Second, a trade association rats them out as a bad apple,

Third, State AG should do something about it: fine them, shut them down, etc.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM

How do you keep track of where that bad apple came from?

(I think we’re highjacking the thread with abstract…but fun discussions)..so…I think mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional and should that point should be hammered away at to all politicians who try to force it on the people.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM

With all the bureaucracy needed to track and enforce that, you’ll end up with what we have now, or a six or one half dozen of the other.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:25 PM

But it would be Constitutional… which right now is questionable.

I was trying to point out that there are mechanisms we could use to get to the same point, WIHTOUT giving the Congress Powers that are not mandated in the Constitutuion.

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Pelosi: “Constitutional? What does my morning walk have to do with anything?”

mrt721 on October 23, 2009 at 4:38 PM

How do you keep track of where that bad apple came from?

(I think we’re highjacking the thread with abstract…but fun discussions)..so…I think mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional and should that point should be hammered away at to all politicians who try to force it on the people.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Thread hyjacking is OK when the thread is this old.

I cannot think of the last apple I ate, less the ones I pick at an apple orchard myself, that did not have a sticker on it. So, the stiocker will tell you the grower.

Bad apples would also reflect bad on the grocery, so they will also filter for you since they do not want to sell bad apples.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Tonsil removal pays better.

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM

My state has a loop hole that allows that…sweeeet deal. And we are allowed to sell them to the Chinese. The herbalists there sell dried American tonsils as a way of growing those beeg American peenises.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Pelosi: “Constitutional? What does my morning walk have to do with anything?”

mrt721 on October 23, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Thread winner…

does she also defend her morning Walk? Against ALL enemies foreign and domestic?

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM

The herbalists there sell dried American tonsils as a way of growing those beeg American peenises.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM

If you can only have one kid…make it count!

WashJeff on October 23, 2009 at 4:44 PM

It would seem that all liability issues for ill effects would have to be off the table of recource of the individual choosing the service..a buyer beware being the rule.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:10 PM

There are two types of liability.
If you think that someone should be able to sue everytime there is a less than perfect outcome. They you are right, that should be off the table. Everywhere and at all times. As I stated before, perfection is not an option, and we shouldn’t penalize someone for failing to be perfect.

If you are talking about suing because the person failed to follow that standards that he advertised himself as following, than lawsuits are still on the table.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM

My state has a loop hole that allows that…sweeeet deal. And we are allowed to sell them to the Chinese. The herbalists there sell dried American tonsils as a way of growing those beeg American peenises.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM

“I applaud Emperor Hirohito for his honesty” – Bill Clinton – South Park

Skywise on October 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM

I can tell you right now that having NO federal oversight of the food industry is not a wise idea in the slightest.

Dark-Star on October 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

What makes you think federal oversight will work any better than state and local oversight?

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM

How do you keep track of where that bad apple came from?

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM

If you bought it directly from the supplier, than you already know.
If you are buying it at the store, then ask the manager where they get their apples from. If he doesn’t know, and you really care, find another store. If enough people care, the store will start displaying the state of origin on the shelves, before too many more customers are lost.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:53 PM

With all the bureaucracy needed to track and enforce that, you’ll end up with what we have now, or a six or one half dozen of the other.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:25 PM

The difference is that we have 50 states, each competing to produce the best combination of cheap vs. safe apples. As it is now. We have one standard, set from above, with no way of knowing if it is the best standard. It’s a one size fits all solution. Worse still, it is subject to major producers buying congressmen to set the standards to give them an advantage.
If such corruption occurs in a state level regulation system, the state that has been corrupted will immediately face a competitive disadvantage with states that haven’t been bought off. Corruption is much more self correcting when you don’t have the federal govt imposing one solution on everyone.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Pelosi is mentally ill. Maybe some of all that Botox found it’s way to what’s left of her brain.

MB4 on October 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I have a childhood friend who is a farmer… grows Tomatoes.

Tomatoes have to be so large, and must be in a certain range of shape (round), and a certain color, even though other species of tomatoes actualy have much more taste…

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM

“Feral government”, indeed. However, I believe they were feral, before, but so much power is exposing them for how impertinent and predatory they really are. Hopefully the voters see them in clear daylight.

Schadenfreude on October 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

“Feral government”, indeed. However, I believe they were feral, before, but so much power is exposing them for how impertinent and predatory they really are. Hopefully the voters see them in clear daylight.

Schadenfreude on October 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Yeah… it was a cute little pussy cat for awhile… than grew into a big ole Tomcat…

But Now? Obama hit it with the X man Mutant making stuff… now its a Giant Mutant SaberTooth Tiger…

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM

This is essentially a tax for being alive. You’re alive and a US citizen? You now officially owe the government money. Your body is now a commodity of the federal govenrment. You have no choice.

walnut on October 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM

As far as I can see, there is only one fallback position that allows this to pass constitutional muster. To get the same net effect and to still meet the requirements, they simply need to force a tax increase equal to the amount of the “penalty” for non-compliance onto everyone (likely as an across-the-board income tax increase), and then offer a refundable tax credit of the same amount if you document that you have a compliant policy.

And that’s precisely what we need to force them to do. Make them come right out and say that in order for their plan to work, that they need to increase taxes on everyone. Let them spin it afterwards that, if you do what they want, you don’t have to pay the tax increase. Put it right in people’s faces. Force them to see what’s being done here.

VekTor on October 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM

I belive, personally, that the mandate will be challenged within a day.
It is simply not constitutional

AnninCA on October 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM

The whole damned idea is not constitutional.

jimmy2shoes on October 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM

jimmy2shoes on October 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM

You and Ann are correct. Madison and Jefferson agree and if I must I can repost their statements regarding the General Welfare clause.

dogsoldier on October 23, 2009 at 5:42 PM

flataffect, slavery was recognized as Constitutional for many years. Does that mean it can’t be overturned?

Unfortunately, the new slavery is only going to be overturned the way the old one was: with guns.

SDN on October 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM

The general welfare excuse is absurd. If they can force us to pay thousands of dollars for health insurance, there’s no limit on their reach.

Doughboy on October 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM

They won’t be able to force us to pay a thing when none of us has a FREAKING JOB! Morons, buffoons, idiots, imbeciles, eggheads……

jimmy2shoes on October 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM

What is the Congress’s rating right now? I know the last one she presided over got down in the teens. I would make all these people pass a civics test before they could run for office.

Dr Evil on October 23, 2009 at 5:46 PM

If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless

Jimbo argued this exact case in the last thread on this subject. He argued there’s enough precedent from historical cases to allow Congress to force you to buy toothpaste if they thought they could get re-elected doing it.

I don’t buy it, but the argument was interesting.

BadgerHawk on October 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM

My state has a loop hole that allows that…sweeeet deal. And we are allowed to sell them to the Chinese.

Itchee Dryback on October 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Well… the selling to the Chinese part is subject to federal regulation…

malclave on October 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM

How does the authority to “regulate” Interstate Commerce suddenly morph into the authority to “require” Interstate Commerce?

Simple Answer: It doesn’t.

Pelosi Answer: Who cares; we’re doing it anyway.

Under this analysis, the U.S. Government could pass a law requiring me to sell my lawn mower (and, I assume, set the price for the sale) to somebody in Nebraska who needs to mow their lawn.

I suggest a law mandating that Pelosi and her entire entourage of sycophants purchase the services of a psychiatrist specializing in delusional disorders.

Because they’re obviously out of their ever-loving minds and THAT is a direct and present danger to the nation.

IndieDogg on October 23, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Whats the penalty for not buying cable or satellite service? How much will the IRS harrass you for not carrying 1 or the other.

Protocol being regulated is entirely different from forced coverage.

Odie1941 on October 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Americans to buy a particular product, even though that has never happened in our 233-year history…..

Until just recently. Has anyone tried to unplug their cable TV? You don’t get that analog signal anymore right?

rollthedice on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Whats the penalty for not buying cable or satellite service? How much will the IRS harrass you for not carrying 1 or the other.

Protocol being regulated is entirely different from forced covera

Odie1941 on October 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM

You all are under the impression that the Constitution matters

CWforFreedom on October 23, 2009 at 6:11 PM

BadgerHawk on October 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Part of me hopes that Pelosi/Reid/filthy lying coward pursue the universal mandate and it makes it to the SCOTUS. I want to see lawyers for the filthy lying coward’s lawyers argue that Congress can do anything it damn well wants and the people are powerless to stop them. The outrage would be so “significant” that even Charlie Gibson might take notice.

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM

First, Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ came out opposing ANY National Healthcare Legislation as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and now Ken Blackwell and the ACRU have done likewise.

nelsonknows on October 23, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Under Article 3 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court powers are NOT to “Interpret” the Constitution, but to ENFORCE the Constitution.

nelsonknows on October 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM

nelsonknows on October 23, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Interesting… just went and looked and the ACLU has been silent on this issue… deafeningly silent…

Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Constitution? ,Constitution? we don,t need no stinking Constitution.

thmcbb on October 23, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4