I am traveling and so forgive my conscripting the magnificent Charles Krauthammer as the primary opiner in this post. But he has splendidly, articulately, and very succinctly summarized the constitutional crisis that the Obamacarians have brought upon this country with either malice aforethought–my view–or at least with reckless indifference to the limited role of government in the American system.
He begins his constitutional discussion with the freedom of religion issue. From “Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution:”
First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.
Then there is the redefinition of insurance and the erosion of free enterprise:
Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining. Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore.
The very real deficiencies of the FE system could–and certainly should before O was elected–have been handled in a FE way–like the assigned risk pools in every state for hard-to-ensure drivers and vouchers, etc. But I think two purposes of Obamacare that such an approach would not serve are to create increasing dependencies on government and to allow the Feds to be the boss of business, as we also see in areas beyond our scope here.
Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.
And think of all the bureaucrats this will take to administer! More power to the government.
I recently saw President Clinton on the Bill O’Reilly show. O’R asked C about the constitutionality of forcing everyone to buy a product. C answered O’R's strictly legal question with a policy answer, that the mandate is required or Obamacare won’t work. But that should be irrelevant altogether if it is beyond the limited powers accorded the Feds by the Constitution! (O’Reilly missed the clever Clinton switch of subjects.)
Clinton’s answer summarized the contemporary Left in a nutshell. Most, and certainly commenters here, don’t care about constitutional principlism. They care about, 1) winning, 2) imposing their policy views, and 3) backing the spine of traditional values. The Constitution no longer has much relevance or importance to them–except when it can be stretched like Play Dough to accomplish those purposes.
February 17th, 2012 | 2:17 pm
Hi Wesley,
I think it’ silly putty not play dough, that their stretching there. Why has no one asked what does insuring your sex life have to do with employment? What employment outside of porn or prostitution needs “sex life” insurance?
This individual mandate health insurance(as if anyone can “insure” health), is just one more argument, along with the illegal immigration debate, ID theft, tax evasion, and a host of market, and licensing problems, that would be solved with some kind of “mark” like:
Bio
Electronic
Automated
Secure
Transaction!
David Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 10:44 am
@Theophile, good question. I think the reason why no one has asked this question is because most are clever enough to answer it for themselves. So, even if one knows the answer, he or she doesn’t want to risk asking the question. This is probably out of fear that others may suspect the questioner couldn’t figure it out for himself or herself.
I thought about this quite a bit and I think it is far cheaper to install an IUD, take a pill, or snip some ducts than it is to provide pre-natal care, a delivery, and medical treatment for an infant and child – up to 26 years, now. Then there is maternity leave, child sick days, loss of productivity, etc.
Thank God we don’t have much time left on this planet before the King returns for his bride, and blood in the valley of Megiddo runs up to the horsies bellies. I hear that Belgium, which took nearly 2 years to get a functioning government, is the epicenter with its Brussels Electronic Automated Surveillance Terminal. Darned Flemish.
February 18th, 2012 | 10:25 am
What “Constitutional crisis”?
Religion is not above the law. This has been long settled.
Congress can levy taxes. This has been even longer settled.
Of all the issues, people are digging their trenches on birth control? I appreciate that they air their insanity in public, but maybe it’s TMI.
Republicans/conservatives seem to have a serious problem with sex and contraceptives. Like the Bible, they are obsessed with whose genitals are penetrating whose and what sperm n’ eggs are up to. It is more hilarious to watch them continue doubling down on birth control than watching Romney continue to double down on his GM stance as he flounders in his home state.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:06 am
You have it backwards. The regulations aren’t above the Constitution. You do know about the Constitution don’t you? Right, you just don’t care.
pauld Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
@David, I am not a catholic and I have not particular interest in other people sex lives. I do, however, care about the Bill of Rights and freedom. If you think the issue is about contraceptives, you are not very perceptive or thoughtful
February 18th, 2012 | 6:45 pm
Wesley, since you’re an attorney and I’m not, you obviously know more about the legal aspects of the President’s health plan. But if our government is able to require us to pay taxes, regardless of our wishes, then why, logically could it not require us to have health insurance, for the good of society?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Just because there is something that might be deemed “good for society” doesn’t mean the U.S. Government can enact laws in pursuit thereof. It is constrained by the U.S. Constitution. The question about the mandate involves the “Commerce Clause.” The U.S. government is allowed to regulate commerce between the states. The point of that was to prevent, say, Pennsylvania from putting a tariff on goods coming into the state from New York. In the 1930s, the idea was expanded greatly to allow the government to regulate anything that was in commerce if it was a fungible good. Thus, the US could regulate a wheat farmer even though he grew the grain for his own use. (Way too far in my book, but as lawyers like to say, “the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.”
But now, we are being told that because there is a perceived national problem with the cost of and access to health care, the government can FORCE US TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE. That is unprecedented. It should be unconstitutional becuase it seeks to force commerce, not regulate it. I have predicted it will be found constitutional because of the very sentiment you expressed. But the Obama Free Birth Control Rule shows how the law has granted immense and heretofore unimagined powers to the Feds. If the mandate is struck down, I think it will be because Obama started to hoard power too soon. Politically, he should have waited.
If it is constituional, I don’t see why the government can’t force businesses to hire so many people per $1 Million of assets, buy a GM or Chrysler car every five years since the Feds have an interest in those companies, or require us all to do anything else deemed to solve a national problem. It is the end of limited government, which is the basis of our freedoms, and the creation of a very powerful federal boss over us all.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
February 19th, 2012 at 12:25 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Thank you. You present a convincing case.
February 18th, 2012 | 7:34 pm
I thought about this quite a bit and I think it is far cheaper to install an IUD, take a pill, or snip some ducts than it is to provide pre-natal care, a delivery, and medical treatment for an infant and child – up to 26 years, now. Then there is maternity leave, child sick days, loss of productivity, etc.
You are assuming that unwanted pregnancies are due to lack of contraceptives.
There is no evidence that I know of to support this. To the extent that we have evidence, it rather suggests the opposite – that unwanted pregnancies are caused by many things, but lack of access to contraceptives is not one of the significant causes.
February 19th, 2012 | 6:56 am
Brett: Mr Smith has given you the long answer to a good question. The short answer is that the power to tax is a power that is specifically enumerated in the constitution. The power to force people to purchase insurance is not specifically enumerated and one must destroy the framework of the Constitution to suggest that such a power is reasonably implied by the Constitution.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
February 19th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
@pauld, hi pauld, thanks, you make a very good point as well.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact