• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Video: When It Comes to Health Care, the Left Doesn't "Worry About the Constitution"

    Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) voted for Obamacare. When questioned by his constituents to identify what part of the Constitution empowers the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance, Rep. Hare replies: “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.” We applaud Rep. Hare for his honesty, but his vote for Obamacare already proved he does not care if the legislation he votes for is unconstitutional. As The Wall Street Journal explains this morning:

    All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can’t Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

    This is why a 1994 Congressional Budget Office Memorandum wrote about the individual mandate: “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

    As Constitutional scholars Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart and Todd Gaziano have documented, the individual mandate can not be justified by the Article I, section 8 taxing clause either:

    Should it adopt any of these constitutional taxing and spending measures, Congress would have to incur the political costs arising from increasing the income tax and the long-term budget implications of issuing tax credits. Precisely to avoid incurring these political costs, Congress is calling fines in the Internal Revenue Code “shared responsibility penalties” so that persons fund the cost of its new regulatory scheme by channeling money through private insurance companies in the form of “premiums.” It is likely that the Supreme Court will find this effort to avoid political and fiscal accountability a pretextual assertion of Congress’s taxation powers and therefore, unconstitutional.

    But Rep. Hale says he does not care about any of this. Fair enough. But he has his facts wrong on what he says he cares about too. At the end of the video Hale says: “At the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person who lives in this country.” When the videographer points out that Obamacare does not do that, Hare replies: “Says who, you?”

    No Rep. Crane. Says the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, after nearly $1 trillion in new spending Obamacare would still leave 23 million Americans without health insurance.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to Video: When It Comes to Health Care, the Left Doesn't "Worry About the Constitution"

    1. John B. San Diego says:

      Mr. Carroll, Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) is likely to get a good butt chewing for bringing light to the demeanor and intent of Speaker Pelosi and the Majority in Congress.

      Chairman Conyers has said publically if healthcare is not a right under the Constitution we (The Dem’s) will offer a Constitutional Amendment that makes healthcare a right under OUR Constitution!

      The Leadership in Congress has put priorities backwards they implemented the law before they obtained the new Constitutional Amendment.

      This law defies OUR CONSTITUTION obstructs economic prosperity and models our country towards the European Socialism we sought to Declare Independence from.

      Where will this agenda end Obama has pushed the issues past the point of no return. A road block is essential.

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Americans who support Obamacare are indifferent to the bill's constitutional overreach. These supporters still believe they'll be economically rescued and/or rewarded by Obama's political empty talk of "HOPE" and "CHANGE". You can't reason with such dazzled supporters anymore than you could with Germans enthralled by Adolf Hitler. Seems to be a recurring phenomenon.

    3. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      PS: No longer a bill.

    4. Billie says:

      when it comes to anything the left doesn't "worry about the constitution."

      It would be interesting to know the background of those on the left, to see how dependent they were and unable to do for themselves, to want to force that weakness on others.

    5. Pingback: Charles Blow of the New York Times: KO’d Street Fighter Style. « DouglasernstYLP

    6. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Healthcare is a service, not a right. And such reform never belonged at the federal level. The enumerated powers of the constitution's commerce clause addresses taxation as is appropriate to the limited powers of government. If the authors pf our founding document wanted the national government to have absolute supremacy over the union, they would have made this very clear. Rather, they specifically limited national governance to external needs with states retaining all powers over ordinary domestic affairs, such as healthcare. This darn federal healthcare monstrosity is totally unconstitutional and should be scrapped in its entirety. The U.S. Supreme court must act and act now!

    7. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      PS: the only right to healthcare is an expectation of standard-of-care and privacy. These expectations already exist.

    8. Wm; Ky says:

      Part of a well-planned and very methodical step furthering Socialism. I am still agast at the number of people, mostly young, who actually want a Socialist Government. It very much confuses me. I would leave the practice of medicine today were it not for the dismal job market. In school I thought "delayed gratification" would eventually pay off. I find myself with 23 yrs of work in medicine and no gratification. I suspect this is why so many docs seek missionary work. Where lives are changed and we are not left treating blemishes and warts. We have now seen our narcissistic children granted voting rights. Seems most have not yet ventured out into the "real world". I feel that a household that does not know what a W2 is should not be allowed to vote where my money goes. With qualifications certainly, but why should someone who has never paid taxes be allowed a vote? This seems to be the power of entitlements and the source of demise of democracies. We are well on the way to Socialism and redistribution of wealth. Or, more likely, the redistribution of poverty. To give wealth and power to the insatiable Fed Government.

    9. stirling, Pennsylvan says:

      That congressman just offends the heck out of me for that comment, and is a good example of just why the government needs less power (rather then more). When government gets so "Arogant" that they think they can do anything they want and are not bound to rules they are acting more as dictators then elected officals.

    10. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    11. Billie says:

      any government official too weak to interpret the true meaning of the American Constitution, obviously can't uphold it. Hide behind their said words "not worry," Admittance of disrespect and belittlement of free people!

    12. Mr. Dave, Missouri says:

      This is why we have to hold our wanna be representatives feet to the fire and demand they sign a statement that they will uphold & protect the Constitution of the United States under penalty of being removed from office the first time that they vote for things like this. They also need to sign a statement that they will read & comprehend every word and its ramifications before voting on any bill. That too on the penalty of being removed from office upon failure to do so.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×