Another democrat scrambles to justify the constitutionality of the health care bill

November 5, 9:34 AMSt. Louis Conservative ExaminerAndrea Simoncic

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

House Minority Leader, John Boehner speaks around a copy of the democrats' 1990 page bill
AP Photo/Harry Hamburg

During a recent interview with CNS, Senator Roland Burris justified the democrats' monstrous health care bill with a nonexistent clause in the U.S. Constitution. Burris claimed that the section of the Constitution that guarantees the government must “provide for the health, welfare, and defense of the country” empowered democrats to force Americans into purchasing health insurance. Said Burris, “Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country," said Burris. "That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.”

In reality, however, no such part of the Constitution exists. No where in the document composed by our founding fathers is the word “health” mentioned. When pressed by CNS, who earlier questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as to the bill's constitutionality, Burris's communications director, James O'Connor told reporters that although “health” is never mentioned in the Constitution, Senator Burris had referred to the Preamble of the Constitution.

The Preamble reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Although O'Connor claimed that Burris referred to the promotion of “general welfare” in his reference to the Constitution, this claim is a stretch. If Burris meant that the general welfare provision of the Preamble justified government run health care, why not simply state so, rather than consistently list them as separate things? The answer of course, is that the Senator is wholly unfamiliar with the Constitution, like many other democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi claimed, after initially dismissing the seriousness of CNS's question, that forcing government run health care on the people was justified by the commerce clause of the Constitution.

During an Oct. 21 interview, CNS asked Senator Burris, “Federally, if you look at it from a federal standpoint, what area, specifically of the Constitution, would give Congress the power to mandate an individual to have health insurance?”

Burris replied, “Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country. That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.”

Burris, like Pelosi, tried to play off the serious nature of the question in claiming that the nation was not even dealing with an issue of constitutionality in the democrats' bill. The American Center for Law and Justice, however, is prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court and challenge its constitutionality if the bill is passed by Congress. Senator Orin Hatch, a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, has also expressed serious doubts about the constitutionality of the health care bill.

“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch told CNS. “You know, the illustration they give all the time is: Well, states require people to buy auto insurance. Yeah, they do, if they want to drive,” said Hatch. “But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want.”

“And, you know, if that’s the case,” Hatch went on to say, “then we didn’t need a 'Cash for Clunkers. All we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound. Now, there may be some gimmicky way that they can do this, but I can’t think of a gimmicky way that would be constitutionally justified.”

Indeed, Senator Hatch, there simply isn't one. The democrats' so-called health care bill is not even about health. As Hatch has implied, andthe bill itself has amply indicated with its 3425 uses of the legal command “shall,” and a mandate to require all Americans purchase insurance or be taxed 2.5 percent of their income, this bill is not about health care at all. It is about consolidating unprecedented and unconstitutional powers never before held by the federal government, and control of the American people.

When asked about the bill's mandate for Americans to purchase health insurance, Burris indicated his ignorance of it, and said that he “may not have covered” that part of it. Yet despite Burris's claims to ignorance, he never denies the existence of any such mandate. Is he truly unaware of this mandate, or does he simply refuse to acknowledge it on public record, for fear of further fomenting the backlash against the health care bill?

When pressed about whether he supported the mandate to purchase insurance, however, Burris admitted, "No," said Burris. "What is happening is, is that the public will still have the options of going to an insurance company and what we’re saying is that we want the public to have a choice to get health insurance. So, in terms of what we have now, if you’ve got your insurance with a private provider--a private doctor--you can keep your private provider. We’re dealing with those persons who are either not able to get employment--insurance through their employer--or who can’t get insurance through, or if they're small business, they can get insurance through their small business through an option arrangement. But there wouldn’t be any type of a--Well, in terms of a requirement for individuals, we’re hoping that everyone within--will receive insurance. We’ve got the 48 million people who are without it.”

CNS questioned further, “Do you think there’s any limit to that? Congressionally, is there any limit to what Congress can require someone, an individual to do?”

“Before we get into all of that, just rest assured, we need health insurance for every one that’s insured,” Burris stated. “We need health insurance where it’s affordable. We need health insurance that can be--that can cost affordable for all the insured and that the insurance companies will not be making excessive profits. That’s what we’re talking about. Okay? All right?”

Congress no longer knows or cares about the Constitution, as demonstrated by Burris and Pelosi. Despite their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, the priority is, as Burris revealed, to pass the democrats' health care bill, not to worry about its constitutionality. Yet if Americans do not question it now, Congress will pass the health care bill, and further dismiss any claims of its unconstitutionality. Contrary to what Burris believes, both the constitutionality of the bill and the limits of what Congress is allowed to do are very important and pertinent issues. Americans must challenge this bill to their representatives and question its constitutionality before it is too late.