Now that the calendar has changed to 2010, what's next on the biggest legislative agenda item for the White House, health care reform? A lot of work might still be the answer for Democrats.
When Congress broke for the holidays, the Senate had approved a health care bill on a 60-39 vote on the morning of Christmas Eve.
For those of you not keeping score at home, the House passed its bill back in November.
So, according to all of your government classes in both public and private schools, that means we will have a House-Senate Conference Committee to work out the differences.
Bzzzzzzt. Not true.
Yes, most bills have a Conference to come up with a final version, but that seems unlikely for a variety of reasons on the health care issue.
One reason is that in the Senate, a variety of parliamentary hurdles can be thrown in the way of plans to set up a House-Senate Conference, which would delay action for months.
Instead, expect key Democrats in the House and Senate to start closed door meetings in coming days on the differences between the two health care bills.
SOURCE: Jamie Dupree
Monday, January 4, 2010
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
SOURCE: Wall Street Journal
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
SOURCE: Wall Street Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
