Media doesn't discuss Constitutionalism on healthcare issue!

[Matt Collins]

I was taking a long drive yesterday (Sunday) and was flipping on my satellite radio between Fox News and CNN listening to the healthcare coverage. Both networks had an extended special in an attempt to break down the complications of this issue.

Fox was of course blatantly railing on it, while CNN was trying to give it an objective look. CNN was not promoting it, and their pundits actually said a fair amount of negative points, especially in regards to it's cost and the fact that the drug companies are behind this. CNN did their best to be objective, as good as any modern day liberal could be.


But what pissed me off was that in the course of an hour not one single person on either network even questioned the legality or the Constitutionality of this! The idea that this universal healthcare program might coule maybe possibly be construed as being unconstitutional NEVER CROSSED THEIR MIND!!!


I was so enraged I almost ran off the road several times and after about 50 minutes or so I had to go back to listening to music to calm down. I now remember why I haven't watched TV since Super Tuesday '08.

[jm1776]

Well gee Matt. That's because everyone is fully aware that it falls squarely under the Commerce Clause.

Besides, Congress just makes the laws, the courts decide if a bill is constitutional or not.

These things have been well established by precedent.

[Bucjason]

That could be the one thing our founders screwed up on : not more clearly defining the limitations of the commerce clause and the "general welfare".

I guess they underestimated the stupidity of thier great great great great great grandsons and granddaughters....


It's still unconstitutional according to the 10th amendment , but a liberal will tell you the commerce clause and the 16th amendment gives them the right to do ANYTHING with our money...

[iddo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082103033.html

[Matt Collins]

These things have been well established by precedent.

Sorry. I'm such an idiot.

I forget that precedent supersedes the Constitution. Please forgive me of my ignorance.

[cindy25]

O'reilly did, broadcast of 8/25

[Standing Like A Rock]

That could be the one thing our founders screwed up on : not more clearly defining the limitations of the commerce clause and the "general welfare".

I guess they underestimated the stupidity of thier great great great great great grandsons and granddaughters....


It's still unconstitutional according to the 10th amendment , but a liberal will tell you the commerce clause and the 16th amendment gives them the right to do ANYTHING with our money...

Well in my opinion the "general welfare clause" (not really a clause) is pretty clearly defined:

Preamble to the Constitution from memory (might be slightly off): We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.

In other words it is saying that to promote the general welfare, it is best to follow this constitution as law and abide by it. Nowhere does it anywhere even slightly imply that congress can do whatever it wants if it promotes general welfare, rather that this constitution was established to promote the general welfare.

[jm1776]

I stand corrected. The general welfare non-clause is deserving of its own line item. So we have in no particular order.

1) Misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

2) Misinterpretation of the General Welfare non-clause

3) The bogus assumption that: Congress just makes the laws, the courts decide if a bill is constitutional or not

4) Supreme Court precedent

5) Media (lack of)

Add them all up and we have a thorny fricken problem. If we had less of #3 then the Supreme Court would not even come into play.

Looking at where we are compared to where we want to be, #4 is a real issue. In order to overcome that one we have to force the court to revisit something already established.

#3 is where we are suppose to have the most influence but as we know that is not working out too well lately.

In order to attack #4 an individual or a class of individuals need to be injured by federal overreach and then actually do something about it. Then the lower courts hang their hats on Supreme Court precedent. So the only recourse is appeal, appeal, appeal until the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case on the grounds that the matter is already settled.

We already know #5 is worse than useless.

As a game plan. What is the best way to fix all of this?

[apropos]

But what pissed me off was that in the course of an hour not one single person on either network even questioned the legality or the Constitutionality of this! The idea that this universal healthcare program might coule maybe possibly be construed as being unconstitutional NEVER CROSSED THEIR MIND!!!

Oh, they know. These aren't clueless people...they spend too much time in politics every day to be oblivious to the Constitution.

Here is an example. On two separate radio shows in the last two days, I have heard callers asking point blank - once to a sitting U.S. senator and once to a talk show host - to define how this is Constitutional. On both occasions, the question was entirely ignored and left unanswered. To attempt to explain away constitutionality displays ignorance (because the argument is indefensible); but silence admits knowledge.

The senator actually pretended that she did not hear the second part of the two-part question so she could ignore the first part...the first part of the question regarding the Constitutionality of health care reform, the second regarding debt spending. It was pretty clear that this was a way of drawing attention away from the Constitutional question.

To admit that health care reform is unconstitutional is to admit that about 90% of everything else in government is unconstitutional. And it necessarily follows that to live under an unconstitutional government is to live under a tyranny.

What happens when people think they live under a tyranny?

[acptulsa]

The last time I remember the media addressing the Constitutionality of a piece of legislation was over twenty years ago.

Interestingly, it wasn't that long after the Department of Education was created.

As a game plan. What is the best way to fix all of this?

I'm ready for automatic impeachment proceedings against any lawmaker who introduces a bill which is later determined to be unconstitutional. If nothing else, all those impeachment hearings will keep Congress out of our hair for a minute or two.

[Pericles]

I stand corrected. The general welfare non-clause is deserving of its own line item. So we have in no particular order.

1) Misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

2) Misinterpretation of the General Welfare non-clause

3) The bogus assumption that: Congress just makes the laws, the courts decide if a bill is constitutional or not

4) Supreme Court precedent

5) Media (lack of)

Add them all up and we have a thorny fricken problem. If we had less of #3 then the Supreme Court would not even come into play.

Looking at where we are compared to where we want to be, #4 is a real issue. In order to overcome that one we have to force the court to revisit something already established.

#3 is where we are suppose to have the most influence but as we know that is not working out too well lately.

In order to attack #4 an individual or a class of individuals need to be injured by federal overreach and then actually do something about it. Then the lower courts hang their hats on Supreme Court precedent. So the only recourse is appeal, appeal, appeal until the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case on the grounds that the matter is already settled.

We already know #5 is worse than useless.

As a game plan. What is the best way to fix all of this?

This is a good summary of the problem, and possible fixes

(1) repeal the income tax amendment - but this year shows that cutting off the money spigot for the Feds won't work - just print more

(2) elect office holders who repect the Constitution - solution the founders intended, but the majority citizens have become addicted to some form of Federal largess from welfare to Social Security / Medicare

(3) the States as a counterweight to federal power has been largely negated by the War Between the States and the direct election of Senators

(4) hit the reset switch by the states in a Constitutional Convention or nullification of Federal laws - or the people themselves in the form of a well regulated militia use the 2A to bear arms in defense of the Constitution against the Federal government and its "running dogs"

[Matt Collins]

Remember that the Preamble has no legal effect.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Remember that the Preamble has no legal effect.

Exactly, it is just stating why the Constitution is being established!!!

[SimpleName]

These things have been well established by precedent.

I love when these a-hole laywer-turned-"legal correspondent" types roll off court cases that set precedents for all of these different issues, but fail to see that the courts don't have superiority to the Constitution, the base of all the lovely work they do. I've also noticed a tendency toward prosecutors on these networks. That's just like them. Guilty until proven innocent.

[jm1776]

The following may be a little half baked, requires a bit more research, but I'll throw it out for consideration anyway. As a means to at least partially address #3 from the list:

3) The bogus assumption that: Congress just makes the laws, the courts decide if a bill is constitutional or not

A class action law suit against our representatives. State residents against another state resident equals state court jurisdiction.

We have at least two causes of action and possibly others. Fraud and Breach of Contract.

Every cause of action has essential elements. The essential elements for any cause of action may vary slightly by state but are basically the same.

The essential elements of common law fraud are:

1) A material false statement made with an intent to deceive
2) A victim’s reliance on the statement
3) Damages

In order to win we need facts on the record that prove those three elements. (Possibly additional elements depending on the state)

The material false statement is that our representative agreed to represents the people of his/her district. Not special interests, not party leadership or party platform. Another one could be their oath to support the Constitution.

I believe a case can be made that: Any representative that votes yea or nay on a bill without reading it or understanding it has failed to provide representation for the people of his/her district. Proving a given representative did not read a given bill is easy when a final 1000 page bill hits the floor two hours before a vote. Proving the representative did not understand the bill would be equally easy. I mean, if our rep does not read or understand a bill, yet voted on it, how can that be construed even in the most liberal sense as representation?

The victim's (us) reliance on their oath or campaign promises to represent the people of their district.

Damages are normally expressed in dollar terms but not necessarily. In this case lack of representation in the federal legislative process is the damage.

Breach of Contract essential elements which must be proved by facts on the record.

1. That plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract. [contract elements; offer, acceptance and legal consideration]

2. That plaintiff did all, or substantially all of the significant things that the contract required him/her to do or that he/she was excused from having to do those things;

3. That all conditions required for defendant's performance had occurred;

4. That defendant failed to do something that the contract required him/her to do; and

5. That plaintiff was harmed by that failure.

I think that a contract exists between the people of a district and their representative is certainly arguable. For number 2, we voted or agreed to accept the majority vote. We agreed by lack of rebellion if nothing else.

Number 3, they took the oath and went to Washington.

Number 4, didn't read the bill, no idea what the bill means or what effect the bill has. No idea what the Constitution means, did not consider the Constitutional implications when voting, etc...

Number 5, again lack of representation or misrepresentation in the federal legislative process.

So having typed all that. Anything baring this type of action, civil or criminal against ones representative? Multiple class action suits filed simultaneously in several districts in every state just might raise some eyebrows.

[Bucjason]

Exactly, it is just stating why the Constitution is being established!!!

Exactly , and read my 2nd sig by James Madison to understand why you must use that in any interpretation of the constitution itself.