Two interesting items presented below highlight the crucial debate in health care reform that Obama does not want us to see: it’s stunning lack of constitutionality. No person in support of Obamacare can defend it. And when they do defend it, they betray their disrespect for the laws of our nation.
First, here is Judge Napolitano debating Representative James Clyburn:
This tape seriously makes me wonder what is wrong with James Clyburn.
Next, in a stunning analysis of a Los Angeles Times editorial on health care printed in the 10th Amendment Center website, author Rob Natelson asserts that:
the claim that the Founding Fathers would have thought the Constitution allows Congress to impose health care mandates is little short of absurd.
The LA Times editorial had concluded that health care mandates were constitutional. Natelson continues:
What really floored me was seeing that this claim was advanced by Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional scholar I very much admire. Apparently, Professor Amar has been seriously misreading the historical record.
I know that record well: Researching and writing about it has taken much of my professional time for many years. Here are some of Professor Amar’s points, and my rejoinders:
Amar: “It’s true that the Constitution grants Congress authority to legislate only in the areas enumerated in the document itself. Other matters are left to the states under the 10th Amendment. But if enumerated power does exist, the 10th Amendment objection disappears.”
Natelson: The Tenth Amendment (and even more so the Ninth) was adopted to signal that no enumerated power should be stretched too much. Otherwise, federalism would be subverted. An important legal rule in the Founding Era (as today) is that documents should be construed to avoid a situation in which much of the language becomes useless surplusage. Stretching any enumerated power too far would render useless both the other enumerated powers and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Amar: “Under the interstate commerce clause of Article I, activities whose effects are confined within a given state are to be regulated by that state government, or simply left unregulated. But the federal government is specifically empowered to address matters that have significant spillover effects across state lines or international borders.”
The whole article can be read here.
What is very interesting to me here is to see the entire charade of diversions and distractions–the length of the bill, the onerous provisions, the backroom and blatant deals, plus international distractions–all of this to hide the simple unconstitutionality of the Obama brand of health care reform.