Schakowsky explains Constitutional basis of ObamaCare

posted at 4:05 pm on October 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

At least Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) gives it a few tries.  First she argued “If we can build national highways,” but Adam Sharp noted that the Constitution does include the authority to build interstate “post roads.”  Next, Schakowsky says enacting civil-rights legislation creates some sort of odd precedent, even though those acts existed to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution.  Schakowsky gives it one last try on Medicare and Social Security, even though the former is voluntary and the latter is an explicit government program (albeit also of dubious Constitutional authority).  There exists no Constitutional reference to force Americans to buy a private product, and Schakowsky winds up walking away:

Founding Bloggers reported from the debate between Schakowsky and her Republican challenger, Joel Pollak.  They promise a longer report for Andrew Brreitbart’s Big Government, so stay tuned.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Under Obooby, it’s the Interstate Communist Clause.

Get in line or no soup for you.

Dhuka on October 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM

This is pathetic. Why are these people even in office? If they can’t even explain what power they do have and where they get it, what business do they have being in Congress? It’s their job to know the Constitution and pass laws with in it’s frame.

Forcing us to buy something we may not want to is asinine and outrageous.

jawkneemusic on October 12, 2010 at 1:43 AM

Hey, Schakowsky. If you knew your job then you will know the Constitutional basis for building roads is national defense. That’s why it says “Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways” on the funding bills, assuming you actually read them.

AaronGuzman on October 12, 2010 at 3:31 AM

I hadn’t realized that Medicare and Social Security were voluntary. How do you opt out?

unclesmrgol on October 11, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Believe it or not, in some jobs it is voluntary. When I was a cop, no Social Security was taken out of my pay.


NavyMustang on October 12, 2010 at 3:47 AM

After observing the Democrat Party and the Socialist Statists that have overtaken the Party, I see many of them cannot answer questions with any truth at all. If it doesn’t fit their Socialist/Communist indoctrination, it’s outside their ability to think independently. Schakowsky is one of the dumbest people in Congress. She’s a perfect match with Babs Boxer and Maxine Waters……

adamsmith on October 12, 2010 at 6:15 AM

Another old angry ugly gnarly faced liberal woman……in case no one had noticed.

…….what is it with these Libgal politicians?

PappyD61 on October 12, 2010 at 7:10 AM

I’d probably generally get responses that are just as vague as Schakowsky’s. (“It violates the 10th amendment!”, “It doesn’t say anything about healthcare in the Constitution” etc etc).

crr6 on October 11, 2010 at 4:39 PM

No amount of mental & linguistic gymnastics you do is going to change the truth of this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the default assumption is that the people are sovereign and the burden of proof lies not on us to show why the Federal Government doesn’t have the right to compell us to buy health insurance, the burden of proof is on you.

PackerBronco on October 11, 2010 at 5:07 PM

And you easily dismiss the 10th. Patrick Henry would certainly have been the 1st guy in line to put your a$$ in a sling.
The Federal govt exists only at the PLEASURE of the states.
We the people RUN the states.
Each state has the 10th to protect it from tyranny.
And the fact that you so easily dismiss it proves you support tyranny.
You, Sir/Madam, are an enemy of this great Repulic, as ALL those who ridicule any mention of the assertion of the 10th are.
The judicial branch also has no right to make sweeping judgements as part of their unique ‘interpretations’ of the Const. in order to foist tyranny upon the states.
Each state has a DUTY to nullify any & all laws, decrees, acts, etc that give the fed more power than it’s entitled to according to the Const.
It’s ridiculous someone has to state the obvious to you.
And no lawyer anywhere in the world, or who ever lived, can change the truth & intentions of the 10th.

Badger40 on October 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM

To regulate is simply the verb form of the word regular. So to regulate is to “make regular” by way of prescribed usages, rules or discipline. So, making rules for the purpose of commerce appears consistent with what’s said in the Commerce Clause. The problem is a matter of context. Seems to me that in the context of the U.S. constitution, given the overall purpose stated in the preamble, whatever usages or rules are prescribed cannot include any coercive element.

No doubt, the plethora of rules created by way of the commerce clause are regulation but, their coercive nature (i.e. no interstate sale of health insurance) make them unconstitutional.

In preparing my comment above, I discovered the “Rational Basis” review test evidently practiced by the Supremes for quite some time now. Forget about context as a problem, the judges have decided on a different set of standards of law- Congress!! So, stop scoffing everytime you hear some politician refer to the U.S. as a democracy. With the judges deferring their decisions to Congress (i.e. the people) by way of the Rational Basis test, everything really is subject to a vote!

Jefferson is no doubt rolling in his grave.

beselfish on October 12, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Can’t we all just be MINO’s now?

rgranger on October 12, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Jefferson is no doubt rolling in his grave.

beselfish on October 12, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Add to that all the rest of those who signed the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution.

Badger40 on October 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM

It should be summed up thusly:

To legally be an American…no purchase necessary.

DrAllecon on October 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Also, void where prohibited.

DrAllecon on October 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Jan makes Pelosi look conservative. The Health care bill is Jan’s pet project, her crooked husband Robert Creamer put togather the Democrap Health Care game plan while in prison for something he did while sharing the same board as his crooked wife. Everyone donate to Joel Pollack to get this bum out of Congress. I hate having this woman representing my district but like Obambi I had nothing to do with electing this despicable person.

cmptrnerd on October 12, 2010 at 2:56 PM

“If we can kill babies, and there’s nothing in the constitution about that, then we can kill _______…”

Akzed on October 12, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Just imagine what Stalin could have accomplished if only he had a Commerce Clause!

Akzed on October 12, 2010 at 6:53 PM

I was gonna ask if y’all had learned why it was a waste of time to argue with crr, but:

Be honest.

darwin on October 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Think about it. I mean, transparent disingenuousness is par for the course, but this thread is a perfect example. Here, it’s accusing everyone else of deliberately mis-stating reality, while at the same time stating that it believes you should all attempt to distort the law to your own purposes (you should argue that the law was not meant to be enforced, because that would benefit you).

crr6 consistently argues that the law, or the Constitution, means whatever benefits crr6. It’s actually arguing that you all should behave that way.

I suppose as an object lesson in how crooked lawyers think, it’s mildly useful, but actually putting any energy into an argument with it… nah.

Merovign on October 13, 2010 at 4:18 AM

I suppose as an object lesson in how crooked lawyers think, it’s mildly useful, but actually putting any energy into an argument with it… nah.

Merovign on October 13, 2010 at 4:18 AM

remember, attorney’s aren’t necessary to clarify law…only to obfuscate it.

Fighton03 on October 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM

only to obfuscate it.

Fighton03 on October 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I do not need a lawyer to tell me what the Constitution means.
This document & its amendments were intended to be understood by ALL, not to be just understood & parsed by lawyers.
The simplicity of it is irrefutable, & yet there are those who aim to refute its every truth.
They are despicable tyrants at heart.

Badger40 on October 13, 2010 at 2:17 PM