quote:

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

quote:

Originally posted by stec74:
Normally I would never post an article from websites like Huffpo, DailyKos, or CNS News, but since another member on this site posted an advertisement and said it was news I figured "what the heck".

"http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971"

quote:

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

So health care reform is Constitutional because it involves interstate commerce? Interesting, considering that health care can not be purchased across state lines.

interstate commerce: The buying and selling of products and services across state borders

quote:

Interesting, considering that health care can not be purchased across state lines.

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:
The constitutional authority could probably be found in the same place that was used to justify the Social Security Act: the "General Welfare" clause.

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
It's not a serious question because Health Care Reform isn't against the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:
The constitutional authority could probably be found in the same place that was used to justify the Social Security Act: the "General Welfare" clause.

Which is just as unconstitutional and should be done away with.

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:
The constitutional authority could probably be found in the same place that was used to justify the Social Security Act: the "General Welfare" clause.

quote:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

quote:

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by stec74:

Ah yes, the "general welfare" argument. Used time and time again by the Congress as an excuse to overstep their authority.

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by stec74:

Ah yes, the "general welfare" argument. Used time and time again by the Congress as an excuse to overstep their authority.

Could very well be- it would make for a very interesting & significant SCOTUS case either way it goes. Maybe it's high time the issue was addressed.

quote:

Originally posted by psychoABN:

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
It's not a serious question because Health Care Reform isn't against the Constitution.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

quote:

IMHO, this is exactly why they are discussing a State "opt-out" for the Public Option.

They realize that forcing individuals and states into the Public Option is unconstitutional and that this "opt-out" will give them a counter argument when health reform is challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
It's not a serious question because Health Care Reform isn't against the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
It's not a serious question because Health Care Reform isn't against the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by stec74:

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by stec74:

Ah yes, the "general welfare" argument. Used time and time again by the Congress as an excuse to overstep their authority.

Could very well be- it would make for a very interesting & significant SCOTUS case either way it goes. Maybe it's high time the issue was addressed.

IMHO, this is exactly why they are discussing a State "opt-out" for the Public Option.

They realize that forcing individuals and states into the Public Option is unconstitutional and that this "opt-out" will give them a counter argument when health reform is challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

IMHO, this is exactly why they are discussing a State "opt-out" for the Public Option.

They realize that forcing individuals and states into the Public Option is unconstitutional and that this "opt-out" will give them a counter argument when health reform is challenged.

So will the states that chose to "opt out" be allowed to "opt out" of paying the staggering costs that will come with this absurd proposal being offered by the Democraps?

We can remember that Jimma Catta gave the states the opportunity to "opt out" of the 55 MPH mandate he forced on us but "opting out" would come at the expense of all federal highway funds for said state. This "matching funds" is also an overstepping of Federal power as the money comes from the taxpayers in the various states anyway.

Democrats are confused by "general welfare" and tend to think it means "welfare generally"

Of course Prime minister Pelosi would consider this to not be a serious question as her ilk dont hold much regard for the constitution anyway, It is simply a hindrance to their agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by shuman14:

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
It's not a serious question because Health Care Reform isn't against the Constitution.

And your law degree is from where smart guy?