Posted on 03/24/2010 5:05:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
The day after the House approved the health care bill, a reporter asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the lawsuits some states were threatening against the legislation on the grounds that the provision forcing all Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.
"I think there's pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this," Gibbs said, without offering any substantive explanation.
Later in the briefing, another reporter pressed Gibbs on the question. "You say there's established law, established precedent," said the reporter. "On what? What is it? What is the established precedent?"
"On the regulation of interstate commerce," said Gibbs.
The reporter then asked how the mandate in question was part of interstate commerce. "Well, that's -- I think, again -- look, I'm not a lawyer, right," said Gibbs.
"And neither am I," said the reporter.
"Right," said Gibbs, "so we're both in a pool where we can't either see or touch the bottom."
Gibbs, of course, has every right to profess ignorance of the Constitution. Who knows, in this instance, he might be telling the truth. But he has no right to denigrate the ability of other Americans to understand the Constitution, and it is fatuous for him to suggest only lawyers can.
George Washington, who presided over the constitutional convention, was no lawyer. He was a farmer and a soldier. Ben Franklin, a delegate to the constitutional convention, was no lawyer. He was a printer and a writer. Most Americans who have fought and died to preserve our way of life were not lawyers. Did these patriots not understand the Constitution?
What part of "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" does it take a law degree to understand?
Surely, a teacher, a doctor, a mechanic, a network news anchor and perhaps even a member of Congress can understand the words of the 10th Amendment as well as any lawyer can. It says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
If the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government the power to force Americans to buy health insurance, then Congress and the president do not have that power. Period.
The Commerce Clause that Robert Gibbs says President Obama will use to claim that the federal government does have this power is no more difficult to understand than the words that protect our private property. It says: "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
If you live in California and engage in a transaction with someone in Mexico, you are engaging in "commerce with foreign nations," and the federal government can regulate that transaction. It cannot force you to buy breakfast in a restaurant on Tuesdays. But if a restaurant you freely patronize buys grapefruits in Mexico, it can regulate that grapefruit transaction.
Similarly, if you live in Ohio and engage in a transaction with someone in Florida, you are engaging in commerce "among the several states." The federal government cannot force you to buy oranges once a week, but if a grocer you freely shop with buys oranges from a farmer in Florida, it can regulate that orange transaction.
Finally, if you engage in commerce "with the Indian tribes," the federal government can regulate that, too.
Over the years, liberals seeking to increase government control over our lives have tried to expand the meaning of commerce "among the several states" far beyond what the Framers understood it to mean. The most far-flung interpretation came in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. Here, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could use its power to regulate commerce "among the several states" to regulate the amount of wheat an Ohio farmer grew on his own land even though he never sold or traded that wheat but used it only for his own consumption on his own property.
It did take a whole team of lawyers to come up with this notion. But those lawyers -- serving as Supreme Court justices -- were not trying to understand the Constitution, they were trying to change it without going through the amendment process prescribed by the Constitution itself.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, until President Obama signed this health care bill, the federal government had never before ordered Americans to buy any good or service. The reason was simple: Until now, no president or Congress dared to exceed their constitutional authority in this way.
In November, I asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, about the constitutionality of the health care bill's individual mandate. "If that is held constitutional -- for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance -- then there is literally nothing that the federal government can't force us to do," he said. "Nothing."
Hatch is not given to hyperbole. He spoke truth. Forcing Americans to buy a product they do not want is a tyrannical act beyond the constitutional authority of the president and Congress. It must be repealed.
Gibbs talking out his rear end, or more likely parroting what his masters told him. At least he had the sense to confess he could not analyze the issue.
ping
Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle and the cow jumped over the moon,
the little dog laughed to see such craft and the dish ran away with the spoon.
It may require more than just states filing lawsuits against this communist takeover of America but we have been electing socialsists so long and putting our heads in the sand and the monsters are in control of the federal government and do what they want.
Stupid Americans voted the communist administration in and they love it.
I think people put to much stock in what Gibbs says most of the time anyway. Rather than saying he will have discuss issues with the president he ad libs to much.
Gibbs plays the buffoon again with these contradictions:
"I think there's pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this"
"Well, that's -- I think, again -- look, I'm not a lawyer, right,"
Gibbs, you *ss, you are the spokesperson for the administration of this POTUS who has based his whole agenda on ramming this unconstitutional piece of crap through Congress. We don't care what YOU don't know, what is the legal position of the hack lawyers in this administration regarding this question??!! MSM, you frauds. You cannot let Gibbs off with this lame and pathetic response.
But if the people are not willing to respond to tyranny with force and revolution, the Constitution and Declaration never meant a damn thing anyway.
Isn’t it obvious that the Lame Stream Media is as ignorant as Gibbs?
“. Forcing Americans to buy a product they do not want is a tyrannical act beyond the constitutional authority of the president and Congress “
Isn’t this a definition of taxation to pay for (purchase) Federal Programs and ‘services’ beyond the scope of the intent of the Constitution??
This new outrage merely takes what has been done ‘wholesale’ and applies it on the ‘retail’ level....
Tyranny is what soetoro lives for. No restrictions apply to him nor his administration whatsoever. Wait and see.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a document written in such basic and clear language that the founding and foundation of the greatest nation in the history of the globe was put down on a SINGLE PIECE OF PARCHMENT.
The disgraceful current Congress of that nation took over 2000pages to lay out the method whereby a person “MAY” have a splinter removed from his behind, providing sanction be obtained from the FBOB (Federal Bureau of Behinds).
That same Congress does not know what it is the bill and has never read it, never will, and cannot understand what it will do to this nation, nor do most of them even care.
Gibbsy and the Administration will continue to yap about all of their Constitutional authority to mandate healthcare right up until the time that the Supreme Court finally shoots this down in flames.
Totalitarians and their mouthpieces don't have to be lawyers to FORCE their will on "free" citizens...but they can be. Identify the methods and machinations of totalitarians and their mouthpieces. Thanks Terry Jeffrey.
I would have said that if health insurance is for private use, then the purchase or lack thereof is a private decision. If it is for public use, then the compensation for our money that is taken for that public use must under the Constitution (back when that mattered) be just. How does one measure whether compensation is just? In the free market, back when freedom was in style in what used to be the United States, that was determined when the buyer and the seller mutually agreed on a deal in which both benefited. In other words, if this was still a constitutional republic, we could not be forced to purchase health insurance for public use because the need to use force would be proof that we were not receiving just compensation for our private property.
Exactly let the new battle cry be “If you are in yer out”...you either voted for this post or you didn’t do EVERYTHING within your power to stop it..
Gee, THAT'S never happened before.
I’ve heard defenders of the mandate claim it is the same as a tax and Congress can levy as many taxes as it wants - and passes.
But it’s not an equally applied tax. People of a certain income level have to pay it, while other people who get health ins. from their employer or buy it themselves do not have to pay it.
I could see it as a property rights issue as well. Your money is your property and no one, not even the government, should be able to dictate how you spend it.
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.