In their zeal to attack Obamacare, one wonders if certain lawmakers actually think their statements through. And it's not just Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, as many might claim.
Sen Rand Paul is proposing a constitutional amendment that would stop lawmakers from passing legislation that doesn't apply equally to U-S citizens and members of Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court. It's more than just a move against Obamacare; it's more specifically directed towards Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Paul's argument: If you're such a big fan of Obamacare, then you should get it, too. "Justice Roberts," he notes, "is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts."
There's a bit of a grudge match for conservatives since Roberts wrote the opinion that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act last year.
This is hardly more than pointlessly symbolic, which won't happen, let alone accomplish anything if it could. An amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it's ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)
Does Congressman Paul believe Congress will suddenly find within itself two-thirds of its members to agree on anything?
For a so-called ''Constitutionalist'' Rand Paul is awful about acting like one. The Constitution states that Justices will receive compensation for their services which shall not be diminished while they are in office. That provision is designed so that politicians like Rand Paul cannot bully justices into backing their laws and ideology. Thus preserving checks, balances, and judicial impartiality. Paul should know you can't cut a justice's compensation of subsidized healthcare just because you didn't like his ruling.
Further, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court does not vote to uphold laws that he likes, he votes to uphold laws that he finds Constitutional. What's next, forcing Roberts to go before a monthly, fictional death panel?
Meanwhile, the irony must be escaping OK Sen James Inhofe.
In an interview with the Washington Times, the 79-year-old Republican said that if he had been in a country with "socialized medicine like Obama is trying to impose upon America," he wouldn't be alive today.
Doctors ordered immediate open-heart surgery for Inhofe after discovering during a routine colonoscopy that his arteries were dangerously blocked.
So a guy with government-provided health benefits was undergoing a routine preventative medical procedure, and they discovered a problem with his heart and successfully performed surgery, saving his life. And the lesson he learned from this is that it would be bad to provide access to government-provided health benefits to more people?
Inhofe is apparently unaware that millions of people his age and younger are using socialized medicine every day, government-run healthcare systems called Medicare and the Veterans Administration. Nor does it appear he was asked about the health outlook for people who never get routine checkups because they have no health care insurance.
What are the odds we'll see anyone in any mainstream media put questions to either Mr. Paul or Mr. Inhofe that calls out their logic for what it is?