Representative Anh Joseph Cao (R-LA-2nd) was formerly best known for defeating former Representative William Jefferson (D), who fell from grace after $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer. Cao gave an interview to Fox and Friends a few minutes ago, in which he explained his vote--the only Republican vote in favor of HR-3962. In that interview, he spoke of his "Constitutional duty" to "represent my people" and to vote the way they would want him to vote.
Sorry, Mr. Cao, but that won't wash--and not merely because you were supposed to be a Republican. It won't wash because HR-3962 is unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lays out the things that Congress is specifically empowered to do. And no clause in that section grants Congress the power "to provide for and maintain a system of hospitals and medical practices," or even "to exercise supreme authority over physicians, hospitals, or payors of same, for the purpose of directing the distribution of medical resources in an equitable manner for the public good," or anything similar to that.
Proponents of HR-3962 or similar legislation will, of course, quote Clause 1, which reads:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
That clause does not say anything specific about what "general welfare" means. More to the point, that specific clause deals solely with the taxing power of the Congress and what tax and other revenues may be used for. This section goes on to grant specific powers to Congress, and again, public hospitals, public employment of doctors, fixing of their fees, and so on, is not among those powers.
Then we hear of Clause 18, the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or the "Elastic Clause":
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Note carefully: "all other powers vested by this Constitution." The Constitution does not vest health maintenance powers in the Constitution. Not in the original text, nor indeed in any of its amendments. Thus bills like HR-3962 would be neither necessary nor proper.
Patrik Johnsson of the Christian Science Monitor tells us that several lawyers, drawing their inspiration from the Tea Party movement, are already preparing constitutional challenges.
So, sorry, Mr. Cao, but you have failed in your Constitutional duty. Your duty doesn't include voting for legislation that you know, or ought to know, is unconstitutional. Nor pandering to your constituents' desires of the moment, while concealing from them--or perhaps not realizing it yourself, which is the greater tragedy--that in the process you have compromised their liberties.
Comments
A quick and genuine question (becuase I do not know the answer for sure myself):
Does the Constitution cover Social Security, the establishment of marriage, or compelling people to perform Jury Duty?
If it doesn't how do you feel about these issues, and how is health care not similar?
There are some people who believe that have a strong argument that Congress does not have the authority to collect taxes, and they too cite the Constitution. It seems open to various views?
While I take your points I feel health insurance is a bit like auto-insurance... if you have a car you must be insured, if you have a body then same thing.
A side note: If you're going to argue about things we 'ought to know are unconstitutional' I would also be interested in your take on the Patriot Act.
Thank you, and all the best,
Michael
That would be anti-federalist interpretation of the constitution.
Marriage and jury service are a part of English common law, which is the foundation of the Constitution. What makes marriage a federal matter is Article IV, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." I'd say that the Defense of Marriage Act falls under that direct authority.
Social Security is not in the Constitution.
The only reason why States may require auto insurance is that States operate streets and highways, and may approve who may or may not drive on them.
As to the Patriot Act: That's in there because people are convinced that they cannot effectively defend against terrorists without stopping them from carrying out their plans. I'll defer to Andrew Napolitano's opinion, while also insisting that people be allowed to arm themselves.
To continue my comment on the Patriot Act: I cannot comment effectively on that Act without examining it in greater detail. Judge Andrew Napolitano has severe reservations about it. I trust his opinion, because--consistent with his principled defense of the Constitution--he at the same time says that the Constitution grants to every citizen and lawful resident the perfect right to defend himself against attack, individually or in concert with others.
The "National Guard" is not the militia. Those units are military arms of the States. And whle Congress is authorized to provide standards for disciplining the militia, they are not authorized to stop genuine militias from forming.
This might mean, for example, that every city needs a different kind of "Patriot" system of anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles to defend its skyscrapers from a repeat of the Manhattan Incident. But my worst criticism of the Bush administration has always been its ignorance of this last line of defense
Oh he failed his Constitutional duty did he? Stop wearing your rear for a hat, because you surely don't look like the Supreme Court.
If whatever passes the Congress (if indeed it ever does, which is hardly inevitable) is actually unconstitutional, it will be ruled so by the Supreme Court (as the GOP will surely sue) and that will settle that. In the mean time, how about getting to the heart of your real beef with Cao: You hate the poor and want nothing more than to see sick poor people dying in the gutter. That's what I want to see from you wingnuts, some honesty. Lets see you show up in the thousands in slums and projects to chant "You are poor, I hope you die."
at William:
Do you really think you have to be a supreme court justice to determine if something is flagrantly unconstitutional? Do you think there's some sort of magical bestowment of wisdom upon a justice when they're sworn in that gives them some clarity the rest of us don't have? Yeesh. People are entitled to their opinions. Spewing angry rhetoric at them and accusing them of wanting people to die doesn't fix anything. Do you really think opponents of healthcare reform want people to die? Maybe we just think there's a better way to do this for the good of all.
Ahn Joseph Caois the one republican congressman, that has not had a limbaughtomy. He can still think and act for himself, and the people that elected him.
Does anyone here believe that medicare and the VA Hospitals are unconstitutional?
Um... actually, you do have to be at least 5 Supreme Court Justices to hold a law unconstitutional. In any case, rear-hat wearing, would-be lawyer who wrote this column gives a constitutional analysis that is so weak and stupid as to be an embarassment even for an 11th grade "AP US History" student. You know when America stopped trying to read the constitution this way? 1819, in McCulloch v Maryland when the Supreme Court decided to cut Congress some slack.
And yes, I truly do believe the "we have a better way" boat has long since sailed. About a year ago, I was moderate-to-right leaning on health care, but listening to the unfiltered opposition (that is, opponents in their own words, not dumbed down through the MSM) it is only possible to believe that some element of inhumane, un-Christian, cruelty motivates every opponent of universal health care.
I do not, nor would I ever advise my readers to, hold myself responsible for the bad precedents that the Supreme Court has set over the centuries of its existence. Supreme Court precedent and *stare decisis* cannot trump the plain language of the Constitution.
With regard to "hating the poor": The poor are singularly ill-served by any system that proposes to keep them in poverty and, furthermore, threatens them with rationing and a decision that their lives are somehow less valuable as a matter of public policy. Indeed, if the public system were so great, then every Member of Congress ought to be ready to sign up for it himself.
The Constitution does not authorize this. Nor would I support any amendment to the Constitution to *make* it authorize this.
The VA hospital system might, by some stretch, be authorized as a means of repayment for services rendered. But few among its patients truly believe it to be a system that they would use if they could afford anything better.
I agree with ur post
You are a selfish IDIOT!!! Finally a Republican does something positive for those he represents instead all the other Republicans wanting Obama to fail and therefore the Country to fail just for Politics!!! Remember 70% of Americans Want a Public Option. 75% of American Doctors want a Public Option who doesn't? Republicans and the Health Insurance Industry! That says it all!!!
@dcmurphy: Where do you get your figures? Why did 55% of doctors surveyed in an IBD/TIPP poll say that they wanted no part of any public option? Why did 45% of them go so far as to say that they would take down their shingles if such a thing passed? And how do you explain 1.8 million protesters crowding into Washington DC (and shutting down the highways) after two months of planning? (And 15,000 to 25,000 people showing up in Washington after less than a week's notice!)
I agree that one of us is operating in a world of his own. But we clearly differ on which one.
"Unconstitutional"? Really? You have a J.D.? Where are your legal arguments proving this? Please cite court cases. Oh wait, you don't know anything about the matter. All you do is speak in vague terms and post a link to some lawyers preparing legal "challenges." Sorry, you're not convincing at all.
Using your own logic, Social Security and Medicare would be unconstitutional, even though a majority of Americans prefer to keep such programs around. Clearly, you're in the minority.
It's odd that you zeroed in on Rep. Joseph Cao and not the Democrats who voted for the bill. 22 % of his district is uninsured, which is 50 % higher than the national average. Congressmen are supposed to vote in the interests of their constituents. Apparently, you've no idea about how politics actually work.
By the way, this healthcare bill has the support of the AMA and AARP. It's strange that you conveniently omitted that fact.
@Jeremy: Unconstitutional is what I said, and unconstitutional is what I meant--and still do.
Now it is true that I have no formal training in the law. But then, have you such training? Besides: Judge Andrew Napolitano *does* have the JD degree, and *he* says that it is unconstitutional, on the precise grounds that I laid out. Indeed, members of Congress have frankly admitted that very little of what they do is constitutional.
The "interest of one's constituents" may not legitimately include the wholesale theft of other people's substance to suit either him *or* those who voted for him. Indeed Anh Cao is no better than William Jefferson. At least Jefferson was more "honest" about taking direct personal bribes. Anh Cao takes bribes in the form of favors for his constituents that the Constitution was never meant to authorize.
And don't tell me about the AMA or the AARP. Both those organizations are in it to get graft. Because that is exactly what government health care is: graft
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!