Congress doesn't seem to like the constitution

myanchor · #1 26th October 2009, 02:42 PM

CNSNews.com - When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

wpiman2 · #2 27th October 2009, 02:48 PM

That documents means very little to the Democrats on the Hill except when it suits them.

eldermike · #3 27th October 2009, 03:23 PM

The old interstate commerce trick, works every time.

lordbt · #4 27th October 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by eldermike

The old interstate commerce trick, works every time.

And this:

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

What I wonder is if people on the left think there is a limit on governmental authority? Is there a line that they think the state should not cross? I get the feeling that most believe that Congress and the president can do anything and pass any law that doesnt violate the Bill of Rights. They seem to view the Constitution as a blank check for government power, not a check on government power.

eldermike · #5 27th October 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by lordbt

And this:

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

What I wonder is if people on the left think there is a limit on governmental authority? Is there a line that they think the state should not cross? I get the feeling that most believe that Congress and the president can do anything and pass any law that doesnt violate the Bill of Rights. They seem to view the Constitution as a blank check for government power, not a check on government power.

That is the key, how one sees the constitution. Think about it: A people that lived under a King, a people that paid a huge price in blood to escape rule without reason, taxes without benifit, only to write a doccument that gives even more power to a government.....Not so and any student of this nation knows it's not true. The constitution limits government and the court should have known this and spanked them at every turn when the government took power it never had. But here we are at another point in history, some of us seek comfort, some freedom.......they have never come wrapped in the same package, and one of these is a trap that only blood will do as payment for escape.

jayem · #6 27th October 2009, 05:10 PM

I strongly support the individual mandate, but I think it's really stretching the general welfare and commerce clauses to claim Congress has the power to establish it. If an individual mandate is enacted at the federal level, I'm sure it will be challenged in the courts. Will be very interesting to see what happens.

The states have the power to mandate health insurance, and ideally, that's where it should be done.

Autumnleaf · #7 27th October 2009, 08:08 PM

Power over others is a waste unless it is used. That is why governments impose more and more upon their citizens until the society collapses under the weight of its government.

Polycarp1 · #8 27th October 2009, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by eldermike

That is the key, how one sees the constitution. Think about it: A people that lived under a King, a people that paid a huge price in blood to escape rule without reason, taxes without benifit, only to write a doccument that gives even more power to a government.....Not so and any student of this nation knows it's not true. The constitution limits government and the court should have known this and spanked them at every turn when the government took power it never had. But here we are at another point in history, some of us seek comfort, some freedom.......they have never come wrapped in the same package, and one of these is a trap that only blood will do as payment for escape.

There is a great deal of truth in this, but it does not cover the whole gamut of the issue. We Americans had been under a government chosen jointly by King George and the British aristocracy that (at that time) had a mercantilist view, that the colonies existed for the benefit of the home country and were not themselves entitled to representative government. To replace this, we established a loose federation under the Articles of Confederation, which proved to be inadequate for the needs of the nation at the time. Manufacturers, agriculturalists exporting cash crops, and merchants were all frustrated by the weakness of the central govrnment. To replace this, we established the Constitution as a strong government within explicit limits.

eldermike · #9 27th October 2009, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Polycarp1

There is a great deal of truth in this, but it does not cover the whole gamut of the issue. We Americans had been under a government chosen jointly by King George and the British aristocracy that (at that time) had a mercantilist view, that the colonies existed for the benefit of the home country and were not themselves entitled to representative government. To replace this, we established a loose federation under the Articles of Confederation, which proved to be inadequate for the needs of the nation at the time. Manufacturers, agriculturalists exporting cash crops, and merchants were all frustrated by the weakness of the central govrnment. To replace this, we established the Constitution as a strong government within explicit limits.

Ok, there are details I left out, but in the end nothing changes by adding them. The basic idea of limited government has been thrown out the window because people would rather be comfortable than free.

I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said; "the problem with socialism is pretty soon you run out of other peoples money"

Well that's not the real problem but it's one for sure. The real problem is: we do not have guiding principles in the form of doccuments that describe the will of people to go down that path. So, until we go back and find our way on the path we were set on in the first place, we are lost and at odds with the principles we are sworn to defend.
That's a real problem.

BobW188 · #10 28th October 2009, 03:38 AM

It is arguable that requiring universal coverage would "promote the general welfare;" and if so Congress could properly enact it based on its power to enact laws "necessary and proper." As has been noted above, congressional power to regulate interstate commerce could provide additional Constitutional justification.

Constitutionality would be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court which, for better or worse, does not give advisory opinions.

It was my impression that reporters on beats like the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court usually brought with them some knowledge of how government works. One suspects our Inquiring Reporter was well aware of the above provisions of the Constitution, and simply couldn't pass up the chance to ask a loaded question. Speaker Pelosi's answer might have been better, I suppose, but it was hardly inappropriate.