Not quite understanding the word mandate

Ed, you are entirely too liberal when it comes to the Constitution. You should not yield the medical field to Congress for the sake of argument – you make a good point on the mandate issue, but much more important is the fact that medical care is simply not a federal issue.

The history of the Interstate Commerce Clause is toll roads and interstate duties, etc. – not just any old business at all that might have some economic impact on another state. The problem (with all due trepidation about being labeled “racist”) was with the Supreme Court’s validating the Civil Rights Act on the Commerce Clause. A nice gesture to be sure, but damning for faithfulness to the founders’ intentions.

This woman should be taken severely to task:

It is absolutely absurd to ask whether the constitution specifically or explicitly allows Congress to regulate or reform healthcare. The Constitution speaks broadly and ambiguously. Only a few provisions are specific and beyond dispute (like the age requirement for presidents and members of Congress).

* * *

If conservatives only believe Congress can regulate things that are explicitly mentioned in the actual text of the Constitution, then they should essentially advocate the abolition of the federal government. At a minimum, they should seek the immediate repeal of laws banning partial-birth abortion and kidnapping; the Constitution does not mention children or abortion.

Actually, the empowering provisions of the Constitution are (without – as you point out – being absurdly specific) pretty darn clear. And while I would not advocate abolition of the Federal Government, I would definitely advocate abolishing most of what we have today.

For example, she is perfectly right about abortion – but she forgets that her argument really means – not only repeal of partial-birth regulation – but that the Supreme Court wrongly involved the Federal Government in the issue with Roe v. Wade.

And, it follows that she is right about the mandate issue, as well: if the Federal Government can truly regulate health insurance based on the interstate commerce clause, then it can enforce mandates. The real answer lies in reading the Constitution for what it is.

Her argument, of course, does the opposite of abolishing the Federal Government – it abolishes everything else.

ManUFan on October 24, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Once again, words are being used and abused in an effort to push a particular policy. The word “welfare” had an entirely different meaning before the Left took it and mangled it. Welfare used to mean “well-being”, as in the safe and secure state of the nation.

(Fare thee well).

OldEnglish on October 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM

The “general welfare” clause is being mangled by the liberals – and needs conservatives to be mindful of its intent. It is, in fact, another limitation on government – not some broad grant of federal power. In other words, in order for Congress constitutionally to enact a law, it must first, be within a specifically enumerated power, and second, must be for the general welfare. It is a limit on an enumeration. It is not a Don Quixote.

If you passed high school English, and read the clause with any modicum of care, this meaning is plain. But that’s no fun, is it?

ManUFan on October 24, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Perhaps I’m being a bit thick, here, but aren’t you saying that the “general welfare” clause is the same as my post? I was merely pointing out that the word “welfare” has been altered to mean nanny state.

OldEnglish on October 24, 2009 at 9:36 AM

I was using your post as the occasion to make a point – not really to disagree or agree with it. I do, in fact, largely agree. My point was that – regardless of the meaning of “general welfare”, its function was as a further limitation – not an independent grant of Federal authority.

ManUFan on October 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Exactly. During the GOP primary, [LGF] devoted their time to bashing the most conservative candidate in the race Ron Paul.

Then when they get their way with ultra leftist McCain as the candidate, they bolt and go support Obama.

It’s just opportunism.

Spathi on October 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM

It’s a bit more complex. Charles Johnson was a liberal – but not a particularly activist one (his site was largely devoted to IT issues) – until Sept 11th. Then, he became quite activist – especially in opposing fascist islam. And he found himself attracting a conservative crowd – and he catered to it, roundly criticizing MSNBC and DailyKos.

But Charles’ ultimate bugaboo is racism (with creation/evolution a close second – but have to wonder if the two are not somehow connected). Not just sure what goes on there, but it is something pretty deep. At the slightest hint of racism, he gets his back up and starts spitting. He hates Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan – not because they’re racists (which they probably are not), but because they have been seen in the company of people with a white-supremacist cant.

He currently has a rant on for Rush – whom he paints as a racist/race-baiter. He supports that with the liberal-talkingpoints laundry list of supposedly racist quotes from Rush – none of which, when looked at with any care, support the thesis. In fact, when you have spent any time listening to Rush (Charles obviously has not), you know he is just the opposite. Most of his statements go to illustrate that it is the left – not the right – that is racist.

Charles is also strongly pro-choice, and in the Gore man-made-global-warming alarmist camp. Gradually, he is reverting to his original liberalism (hates Glenn Beck, but hasn’t a negative word at all for MSNBC or Kos), but is still reluctant to come out and admit it; instead, he disguises his liberal rants as “cautions” that conservatism is risking its credibility by making all its silly conservative arguments.

It’s kind of tough not to feel a bit sorry for the fellow. He was at the center of attention for quite a while after the Dan Rather bit, but not much of anyone is paying attention to him anymore – and he has declared war on Hot Air and Michelle Malkin. He is a very troubled, angry man – largely stemming, I think, from his inability to come to grips with – and admit – his liberalism.

At the heart of it, in my opinion, is the racism thing – have no idea what it’s about, but it is truly an obsession with him (and probably accounts for his evolution fanaticism as well). He needs to get out of his garage, and be honest with himself; lose his anger.

Poor Charles.

ManUFan on October 24, 2009 at 10:00 AM

csdeven the government doesn’t give a flying rat’s a@@ about anybody’s rights. They’re only concern is their power. The whole “health care” circus is just a hail mary pass by them to see if they can get their slimey hands on our very lives, which is the ultimate power.

Wine_N_Dine on October 24, 2009 at 10:02 AM

You’re just about dead on. But Uncle Barry does care about civil rights – mostly, about taking them away.

But they are playing cagey about how to do it. They will give you abortion, porn, drugs, etc. to placate and distract you from the fact that they are taking away the really important ones – economic and property freedoms.

ManUFan on October 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM

In the same breath [individuals] should not, absolutely not, have the freedom to spread that deadly disease to others who may prefer to remain healthy. Sanitariums were used at one time to isolate individuals when cures or treatments were unavailable. Although it was viewed as an infringement on those souls’ rights to freedom, it was inarguably in the interests of the “general welfare” to not expose the citizenry, especially as it would most often be unwitting and uninvited.

* * *

Robert17 on October 24, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Will not argue the wisdom of this government policy – and there is probably a debate there – I will argue about which government should perform that function. Sanitariums were not provided by the Federal government; the function of which you speak is a state function.

A good reason for that, is precisely because there may be some argument about how the state forces – or not – people into sanitariums. And if you don’t like the way your state does it, you should be able to move to one whose methods you do like (assuming the debate is substantial enough to yield different results in different places).

ManUFan on October 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM