Easter At The White House

Perhaps in the spirit of Easter, the Obama administration now seeks to resurrect its martyred healthcare bill. This, of course, will spark a new round of hostile debate between Democrats and Republicans alike. The new 2.9% Medicare payroll tax on “interests, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents” is surely to become an issue of hot contention. If this tax, as is rumored, extends to capital gains, it will raise the ire of people in all political parties. In this economic climate, very few Americans will approve of a bill which would inevitably hinder job growth by discouraging capital investment. The internecine battle between ideological naiveté and pragmatic prudence will, once again, consume our national media’s dialogue. It will create the net effect of knocking down the prestige of American politics yet another notch.
As the White House continues to push forward with its plans to nationalize America’s health insurance system, many legitimate concerns are raised and competent arguments made. Fear of a general decline in healthcare quality, tax increases and Medicare cuts are just a few examples of grievances voiced by the American people. There is one argument however, which is oft overlooked and which leaves all other points moot. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction, under the Constitution, to implement the key ingredient of Obama-Care. The “individual mandate” in which all Americans are coerced into what would be the new, federally controlled healthcare system is not only unconstitutional but offensive to the very concept of Americanism.
The Constitution of the United States determines, first and foremost that all governing laws shall be created by Congress. Article 1, section 1 simply states “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” This clause takes precedent over all others due to the Founding Fathers’ quest to insure that the power of this government would flow from the people upwards. The direct representatives of the people were to have the sole power to initiate legislation. The Constitution then goes on to enumerate seventeen specific powers granted to Congress; leaving all else to the States and to the People. This leaves no doubt as to the limited role the Founders intended for the Federal Government. Congress is then allotted the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”. Of the seventeen congressional powers listed in Article 1, section 8; seven deal with war powers and military matters, two with currency regulations, and one respectively with the post office, the National Capital, patents, inferior courts and naturalization. This leaves Congress granted with a mere three Constitutional powers which hold relevance to the current healthcare debate.
1. “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.” This clause is what enables our legislative bodies to keep in place its current ban on interstate competition among health insurance companies. Though the removal of this ban would certainly help to bring down premiums by opening the market for individuals and groups, it is not necessitated by Constitutional authority.

2. “Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” This is the power which will legally enable Congress to borrow many more trillions of dollars from China in order to fund the President’s national healthcare dream and juggernaut the nation’s already unsustainable debt into barely conceivable proportions. This, of course, would be highly unpopular among the American people but not in violation of Constitutional law.

3. “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…” The “general welfare” provision in this clause is without a doubt, the lynchpin to the President’s legal justification of his healthcare overhaul. It may, very well, grant Congress the Constitutional authority to “borrow money on the credit of the United States” and to collect erroneous taxes from its citizenry in order to fund its ideological endeavors. The revenues collected from these new taxes could then be “properly” distributed among the masses in accordance to the Federal Government’s judgment.
Thus is established the aspects of Obama-Care which, however negligible, are within the Constitutional rights of Congress to enact. It can legitimately continue to block national competition among health insurance companies, supersede the authority of the States to regulate these companies and levy new taxes on individuals and businesses to fund its ever-expanding bureaucracy. Since it would be naïve to presume that tax increases alone could possibly cover the net deficit of this incredibly large program, Congress would also have legitimate power to receive more loans on American credit. This, of course, would further exacerbate America’s growing dependence on foreign nations, but would be legal nonetheless.
The “individual mandate”, which is the driving force behind the President’s proposed bill, does not hold up to the same Constitutional scrutiny. This mandate would compel all American citizens to purchase the health insurance which would now be under the Federal Government’s control. Individuals who would choose to opt out of the system would face government imposed fines and possibly time in jail!! Businesses with fifty employees or more would face a $2000 per employee fine for not offering group plans!! This type of Federal infringement on personal liberties would be so blatantly in violation of the Constitutional powers granted to the government, that it is beyond the precipice of debate. None of the seventeen powers granted to Congress, stated or implied, could be twisted into a de facto, carte blanche for the Federal Government to create laws which punish people for not buying health insurance! There is a strong case to be made that this act of imposed penalties, based solely on a group of people’s unwillingness to purchase something controlled by the government is, in fact, a “Bill of Attainder” which is specifically banned in the “Limits of Congress” section of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 9)
Perhaps most disturbing, however, is the implied reasoning of the President and the Congressional Majority Party Leaders in validating this type of coercion. The States of this Nation mandate that individuals purchase car insurance policies in order to register their automobiles. These laws are based on the theory that a license to drive is a privilege granted by the State and not a right of its citizenry. Our current national leadership seems to apply this same theory to health insurance. The disturbing underlying message is that to simply be alive and free in America is a privilege granted by the Federal Government and not the divine right of man promised by our nation’s Founders.
Perhaps in the spirit of Easter, the Obama Administration now seeks to hand out baskets full of candy to some, while violating the rights of many. Perhaps it feels these “many” should suffer and repent for what it perceives as America’s litany of sins. The Constitution was created to protect the people from their government and NOT for the government to protect the people from themselves, as our current leadership seems to infer. The beauty of the American system of government is that it allows for open debate of contentious issues such as the current healthcare proposal. But bills in violation of the Constitution should lay dead upon arrival, with no chance of resurrection. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must always remain the “end all- be all” of American political debate.