Jack Conway, Democrat Kentucky AG who is running for the Senate has some interesting concepts of the Constitution. For one, he says he concurs with the following quote:
"My copy of the Constitution doesn't have an individual right not to be insured. If you don't sign up for insurance, then you're going to be some kind of drag on the system."
Those are the words of Charles Fried, former U.S. solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and now a Harvard constitutional law professor. That he is a professor at the ultra-liberal Harvard University says it all.
Pardon me for mentioning something so blatantly obvious to most folks, but my copy of the Constitution does not have an individual right to not be UNINSURED, either. In fact, my copy of the Constitution does not have an individual right to not do a whole lotta things. You see, Mr. Conway, the Constitution was not written to tell us what we the People cannot do. It was written to tell the government what it can and cannot do. And in Article 1 Section 8 it enumerates exactly what powers Congress has, and the 10th Amendment clearly states the Congress may NOT assume any further powers not specifically granted to it. And nowhere, Mr Conway, is Congress SPECIFICALLY granted the power to force any citizen to buy anything, nor to punish him for failing to do so.
Conway goes on to say they are also the sentiments of most constitutional law experts who have examined the question of the constitutionality of the new health care reform legislation. But that is blatantly untrue. Most Constitutional scholars with no political axe to grind all agree that the Health Care law is unconstitutional on several grounds.
Conway goes on to prove his ignorance by stating "advocates of these meritless lawsuits advance three primary claims: 1) the individual requirement is unconstitutional; 2) the requirement upon the states is "commandeering" in violation of the 10th Amendment; and 3) it results in an unfunded mandate through Medicaid to the states. These rhetorical arguments are without merit."
They are neither rhetorical nor without merit. Again, I would mention that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given any power to issue a mandate to buy a product, not even under the "commerce clause." After all, if I choose to NOT buy insurance, how does that constitute commerce? It does not. If I sit in my room and do nothing, I am not engaged in commerce and cannot be regulated under the commerce clause.
As for the requirement to commandeer the states, that is specifically addressed in the 10th Amendment. In fact, Conway states, "If states decide not to form exchanges, the federal Health and Human Services department will set up exchanges for them." If that is not commandeering, Mr. Conway, then I don't know what is. Each state is soveriegn, and has rights of sovereignty, though liberals do not like to admit it. And the 10th Amendment states that any powers not granted to Congress shall belong to the states, and to the people respectively. For the government to declare that they can come to a state, and without the state's permission set up insurance exchanges is a violation of state sovereignty.
And as for his absurd assertion that forcing the states to pony up billions more for additional Medicare is not an unfunded mandate, by definition it is an unfunded mandate, which the Supreme court has already determined to be unconstitutional. The Health Care bill only covers those extra costs for a couple of years - after that, states must fund it.
I do not know how someone so illiterate as far as the Constitution is concerned ever became a State AG. But I can tell you that he has absolutely disqualified himself as a viable candidate for the Senate.
Simple facts: non-commerce cannot be regulated as commerce; the government cannot pass unfunded mandates; and Congress has no right to force any citizen to buy a product he does not want - it's all about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the right to exercise our free will and conscience.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment