Posted on 11/09/2009 8:18:04 AM PST by AmericanHunter
Hello – is there anybody out there who still believes our leaders in Washington care about what the Constitution of the United States says? Or what it was intended to mean? Or even that it exists? If there actually is anybody out there who still believes this, recent discussions on Capitol Hill about proposed federal legislation should dispel such thought from the minds of even the most die-hard optimists.
Legislation dealing with the delivery and cost of health care in the United States is nearing votes in both houses of the Congress. Although differing significantly in their details, the primary proposals in both the House and the Senate establish clearly it will be the heavy hand of the federal government, not patients and their doctors, who will be controlling health care decision-making in the decades to come.
With such a massively expensive and substantively far-reaching piece of legislation being debated at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, one would hope that our “leaders” in Washington, DC might at least pretend to articulate a constitutional justification. It wouldn’t be that hard, considering the precedents available at least since the 1930s for finding a justification for even the most intrusive government programs and regulations hiding somewhere in that magnificent document. Even were the infamous “commerce clause” deemed not sufficient to provide a justification for a government program, the always popular “general welfare clause” could be dragged out to provide constitutional cover.
In this age of constitutional ignorance, however, Nanny State proponents don’t even bother pretending to provide a constitutional underpinning for whatever government–based and taxpayer-funded program they advocate. HR 3962, the massive “Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009,” is almost 2,000 pages long and would spend more than 1.2 trillion taxpayer dollars, but contains nary a reference to the Constitution; no wave of the hand to “general welfare” or even a passing homage to the “commerce clause.”
In fact, when asked recently by a reporter if the health care bill was “constitutional,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded disdainfully, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Obviously, she never answered the question.
The reason Pelosi never answered the question about the constitutional foundation for the legislation, is because quite simply, there is none. There is no legitimate basis in the Constitution for the government to control decisions regarding what health care a person receives, what medical services and medications are appropriate for a patient, who is to pay for those services and products and how much they are to cost. Of course, for a federal government that recently concluded it is proper to bail out some private business but not others, to purchase controlling interest in some corporations but not others, and to honor certain contracts but not others, it’s not really that big a step to directly control individual health care.
The response to another question about the constitutionality of a proposed federal edict is even more revealing of the low esteem in which many congressional leaders hold that once sacred document. West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Commerce Committee, apparently is peeved about people who “text” with their handheld electronic devices while driving. Not content to leave responsibility for addressing the problem to the several states, through long-standing laws that allow civil suits and criminal prosecutions of persons who cause accidents while driving negligently (for whatever reason, including being distracted by an electronic device), Rockefeller is proposing federal legislation to ban “texting” while driving.
At a recent Commerce Committee hearing, during which concerns were raised about the constitutionality of such legislation, and about the principle of “federalism,” Rockefeller proudly proclaimed his constitutional disinterest thus — “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights on this one. I care about results.” The “results” include another nail in the coffin of constitutional governance in the United States.
I have a question. If the President or the Supreme Court won’t stop unConstitutional legislation, what will stop it? All that is left after that are the people.
You just answered your own question.
You are correct. I keep asking myself what it’s going to take for the American people to rise up against the traitors and tyrants in D.C.
Is it really hard to understand why they ignore the Constitution? They have proved time and time again that they hate to read - bills, constitution, bill of rights, founding fathers quotes, etc., etc.
You got to break some eggs to make an omelet - comrade.
It was rhetorical. Obviously the Supreme Court is busy finding new rights rather than limiting Congress, so it will ultimately be the States or the people themselves that will have to end this madness.
Or not. 30% of people polled "strongly approve" of the unconstitutional job the POTUS is doing.
48% approve or strongly approve.
Are you kidding me?
The people get the government they deserve.
I think there is a chance that this bill will not pass. If it does it can be tied up in court for years. I’m fairly confident it would die a quick death at the supreme court. There is no way it can be considered constitutional in any way.
With an entire political class that pretends the Constitution doesn’t exist, and treats their sacred oath of office like a mere formality, the people themselves, and whatever habits of liberty still remain ingrained in them, are the only thing standing between us and the grossest forms of tyranny.
That’s what they said about abortion.
I disagree with Barr. The Commerce Clause as butchered by the SCOTUS over the last 100 years provides a catch-all, constitutional basis for just about every law that Congress passes.
Leftists ignore the Constitution out of arrogance.
They simply think they “know better” than those who wrote the Constitution.
I agree. I’m not that optimistic either, but if things get bad enough, people change their mind. It might take 70 years like it did in the Soviet Union, but people change their minds.
“I’m fairly confident it would die a quick death at the supreme court. There is no way it can be considered constitutional in any way.”
After Filburn, Kelo, Raich, etc., I’m not so sure the supreme court will protect us from the fed’s power grabs.
El douche’!
And who needs to even consider it in this day and age? It's old and out of date and not in tune with the way modern times demand it to be.
So, just ignore it. (Pelosi)
I hope you’re not right. I’m trying to be optimistic on this one.
“Yes, of course this means abandoning the constitutional republic. But clinging to a sinking ship only ensures a watery grave.”
I would prefer to see the Republic restored rather than abandoned.
I wonder what Russia would’ve been like today if the Reds had lost in 17.
It is so corrupt now, even after they “changed their minds” that it will probably never recover.
Count how many are lawyers and you’ll have your answer, they are creative with the laws of the land, no matter what they do, such as “no controlling legal authority”, the meaning of “is” is, etc.....
Title 18, Section 241 and 242 are now operative.
Arrest them. Charge them. Try them. Throw them in jail for 30 years.
They are ruled by men, not laws. We are right behind them.
There are hundreds, thousands of so called experts in Constitutional law who will defend anything our Congressional sleazes dream up. Our Congress critters don’t work within or through Constitutional limits. They work around the Constitution or trample over it. But face it friends. If we were still a nation of people who don’t need or want big, oppressive government, we wouldn’t have it, and our Constitution would safe from the liberals who are destroying it.
They tried that back in 1861
How many house members and senators think it is the GOVERNMENT that GIVES RIGHTS to the people? Answer, too many to be dismissed.
If anyone meets a congressman/woman you will be startled at how stupid in the head they are. They are uttlerly dependent on staffers.
Except that in a Constitutional Republic the "people" are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority by the Constitution. This, of course, does not happen because our Supreme Court justices are just as much politicians as the members of the other two branches of government.
Why is this surprising? The US Constitution is meant to restict them. Do you really expect the people whose power is being restricted to look to be restricted as much as possible?
That is why it is important:
1. To have courts that faithfully impose the US Constitution on government.
2. To have an electorate who vote out the worst offenders among legislator and presidents vis-a-vis the US Constitution.
>That’s what they said about abortion.
The sad thing about it all is that referring to the Law as “the nocturnal emitions and masturbations of Congress” is more accurate and defensible than the reasoning with “penumbras and emanations” given for justifying abortion’s legalization.
As your name implies, this is starting to look a lot more like Rome 400 A.D. every day.
That, and the presumption of 14th Amendment privilege status that forces everyone under the butchered part of the commerce clause in the first place.
The Commerce Clause. The undoing of America.
They hate the Constitution and everything else that limits their power.
So, basically the founders enumerated the powers of each branch of government and then placed a clause in the constitution that allows them to do whatever they want?
No, the Supreme Court mis-interpreted the Commerce Clause to allow the SC to do whatever they wanted. The other two branches just followed suit.
Where then is the restraint? How are Congress bound down to the powers expressly given? what is reserved or can be reserved?
An Old Whig #2
Anti Federalist Papers
>The Commerce Clause. The undoing of America.
That, and completely ignoring a single sentence in the Constitution: “No ex post facto law nor bill of attainder shall be passed.”
Congress obviously thinks so and over the last 100 years, the SCOTUS has rolled over and played dead on the issue.
>So they openly admit to violating their oath of Office.
>
>Title 18, Section 241 and 242 are now operative.
>
>Arrest them. Charge them. Try them. Throw them in jail for 30 years.
That would be awesome to see! :)
But where are we going to find both a prosecutor willing to charge them and a Judge willing to hear the case[s]?
Not really true.
The people in a constitutional republic are protected from tyranny (of all kinds) by their consent to be governed by that pact.
If enough people give up on it, or renounce it, then all bets are off.
The document is powerless.
If there are none, then Boxes 1-3 are inoperative. Box 4 becomes default...
The bogus POTUS (I like bogus POTUS!) is more worried about jumping to conclusions about Muslim terrorists than he is about dumping the Constitution!
Is it possible that American's who received their education after the dumbing down process had begun have not had the chance to read the Constitution?
The easiest way by far to begin understanding the Constitution is to read it. It is not 1990 pages, sans amendments, of nonsense. The entire Constitution, its signatories, all 27 amendments, and an index take up less room than a vest pocket checkbook.
Do not be fooled into thinking you need a law degree to comprehend the clear concise words of the Constitution. Nor do you need to fib to people that you were a constitutional law professor to enter into meaningful conversations about the Constitution.
Try lifting H.R. 3962 over your head with one hand.
My copy came from the U.S. Government Printing Office but you can get a free copy of the Constitution very nearly like it and in the same size.
Try it, you may like knowing more than your representatives know after you've read it. You may even be moved enough to send your copy to your representatives.
It would appear there are few who believe we should have a Constitution.
If there was one SINator and one CONgre$$man or one SC Justice who believed in the Constitution, we would currently not have an illegimate resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
We would not have had 220 communists voting to nationalize another 17% of our economy Saturday night.
We would not have a SCOTUS who determined it was the right of the government to seize private property from one individual and give it to others simply because it would give the government a few more tax dollars.
We would not have a SCOTUS that sentenced millions of citizens to be brutally murdered, up to and including at birth. Nor would we have a CONgre$$ that has not used current science to overturn that abomination.
If any of these so-called "leaders" believed in the Constitution, there would be no abridgment of speech, regardless if it was just prior to an election.
If there are indeed those that believe our "leaders" care about what the Constitution says, they ought not be permitted to vote.
ping for later
Our founding fathers gave us all the tools to protect the Constitution, if we don’t do it, it’s nobody’s fault but ours. It’s clear the people were given that task and the means. They couldn’t give the people the courage. That’s up to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.