# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Constitution Does Not Authorize Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

## bobbyw24

Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer


Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Photo courtesy of Leahys Web site)
(This story was updated Oct. 22, 2009, at 1:30p.m..)

(CNSNews.com)  Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.

Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that nobody questions Congress authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"

Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"

CNSNews.com: "Im asking--"

Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, theres no question theres authority. Nobody questions that."


Continue:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55910

----------


## Mini-Me

"Nobody questions that." ...?
Are we living in the twilight zone or something?

----------


## klamath

Very good points made in that article.  

Yes I think congress should just require every American to purchase a car, boat and house to get this economy going! It doesn't matter if you buy it on credit or not. Just buy it God****ed you! Congress has the authority to do this because of the general welfare clause. Yeaw I am even liking this more and more. I want congress to order everyone of you to buy al least one of the products I make. When I get 300 million orders I will hire a bunch of employees. It will cut unemployment.

----------


## hillbilly123069

They don't have the Constitutional authority to pass any of the laws that have gone into effect since George took office.

----------


## DamianTV

So what happens if you replace Health Insurance with Car Insurance, then ask the same question again?

----------


## klamath

> So what happens if you replace Health Insurance with Car Insurance, then ask the same question again?


Though I have my problems with car insurance the difference is that car insurance is required if you wish to use the roads and can opt out if you don't drive on the roads.  Health insurance would be required just the live you life. You have no way to opt out.

----------


## Danke

> So what happens if you replace Health Insurance with Car Insurance, then ask the same question again?


Then don't contract with the state for a commercial driver's license or register your conveyance.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then don't contract with the state for a commercial driver's license or register your conveyance.


But the state would use its police aggressors to check you for a license.  For your solution to work, the police would have to be eliminated too.

----------


## Danke

> But the state would use its police aggressors to check you for a license.  For your solution to work, the police would have to be eliminated too.


Nope, people do it all the time, can it lead to an occasional hassle, sure.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nope, people do it all the time, can it lead to an occasional hassle, sure.


Interesting.  I've never heard of this.  I'll have to try it one day.

----------


## UnReconstructed

> Interesting.  I've never heard of this.  I'll have to try it one day.


its bull$#@!.  this theory has been debated ad nauseam on Free Talk Live and one of the hosts tried it in court and was quickly cuffed and stuffed.  you can read more about this crap here

----------


## Danke

> its bull$#@!.  this theory has been debated ad nauseam on Free Talk Live and one of the hosts tried it in court and was quickly cuffed and stuffed.  you can read more about this crap here


You posted something not related to what I was talking about.

----------


## UnReconstructed

use this then.  the basic premise is that the US is a corporation and people are corporations and your name in all caps is your corporate identity and when you register your car as a car or an AUTO then it becomes part of the corporation of the US etc.

----------


## noxagol

Driving without a license is pretty easy. I worked on a roofing crew of like 10 guys and had the only valid driver's license. Most of them had suspended licenses and one never bothered to get one.

----------


## Danke

> use this then.  the basic premise is that the US is a corporation and people are corporations and your name in all caps is your corporate identity and when you register your car as a car or an AUTO then it becomes part of the corporation of the US etc.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...8&postcount=12

----------


## Pepsi

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami. 

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

http://216.221.102.26/blogger/post/W...u-Serious.aspx

----------


## foofighter20x

People need to be careful with comparisons between health care and auto insurance.

1. States mandate auto insurance--and correcty so, I think--so that if you negligently cause damage to someone else or their property, you can cover the the expense of that liability.

2. What's states do not mandate with regard to auto insurance is that you insure your vehicle against damage you do to it yourself where there is not an injured third-party.

Health insurance is more akin to scenario 2. I can see mandating insurance to cover things like immunization (because if you become a carrier of a nasty bacteria or virus that could kill me solely because you refuse to get immunized, I think I ought to have the right to shoot you and burn your corpse on the spot), but not against things like poor diet choices, poor lifestyle choices, or cancer, or any other catastrophic illnesses that pose no direct danger to me.

However, it's with respect to these latter things that the left wants to force people to get coverage.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I can see mandating insurance to cover things like immunization (because if you become a carrier of a nasty bacteria or virus that could kill me solely because you refuse to get immunized, I think I ought to have the right to shoot you and burn your corpse on the spot)


The $#@!??!!

What are you wheezing about?

If your immunizations are so effective, I could be Typhoid Mary and you'd be protected.

You have no more right to force something *into* my body, or rather, have armed state enforcers do it, than I have to tell you *cannot* put a substance into your body.

Seriously...what the $#@!?

----------


## foofighter20x

Simple evolutionary theory, duh. 

We can all get immunized against the same bug and kill it.

Or...

I get immunized against a bug while you don't. Then, while I'm protected from that bug, you're sitting there carrying it around and allowing it to mutate into a new bug that should have never existed in the first place. (This is, of course, assuming that the immunization has been proven to work and also has been proven less dangerous than just normally contracting the bug.)

Given that assumed set of circumstances, any refusal to just take the damned shot is a pro-germ/pro-disease position. And our position as libertarians is that no person use their property (to include themselves) in a way which will directly harm others.

If society can safely kill a disease and you refuse to cooperate, society ought to have the right to protect themselves from the danger your antisocial behavior is creating.

Now, divorce this abstract discussion from this whole swine flu brouhaha, since the H1N1-A vaccine is more dangerous than just getting to bug. As I said, in that instance, you're perfectly free to not cooperate.

----------


## Bman

> If society can safely kill a disease.


Way to much open for interpretation in your line of thinking.  You'll have to draw a better line or accept your idea is a failure to the rights of the individual.

----------


## foofighter20x

Nah.

Burden of proof is on you to show why I don't have the right to self-defense against another person who by their own choice decided to be an incubator and carrier of some putrid disease which presents a DIRECT threat to my health and well-being.

To me, carrying a lethal disease is just like pointing a gun at me. Don't be surprised when I defend myself.

You guys seriously need to bone up on the harm principle.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I get immunized against a bug while you don't. Then, while I'm protected from that bug, you're sitting there carrying it around and allowing it to mutate into a new bug that should have never existed in the first place. (This is, of course, assuming that the immunization has been proven to work and also has been proven less dangerous than just normally contracting the bug.)


A "bug", any bug, can mutate in any host organism, swine, birds and primates, just to name a few that host bugs that can infect humans.

You do not need a human host for mutation.




> If society can safely kill a disease and you refuse to cooperate, society ought to have the right to protect themselves from the danger your antisocial behavior is creating.


You've just endorsed the line of statist logic that empowers government to regulate everything from carbon output to seat belt usage to background checks for parents to watch their own children.

You do not have a right to forcibly medicate me against my will.

----------


## bobbyw24

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/Gd6USU6UkU

----------


## foofighter20x

> A "bug", any bug, can mutate in any host organism, swine, birds and primates, just to name a few that host bugs that can infect humans.
> 
> You do not need a human host for mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> You've just endorsed the line of statist logic that empowers government to regulate everything from carbon output to seat belt usage to background checks for parents to watch their own children.
> 
> You do not have a right to forcibly medicate me against my will.


I never said you were required to take anything. I simply said that you ca refuse at your own risk, because once you catch a bug, I'm protecting myself from your choice to be a petri dish for disease.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I never said you were required to take anything. I simply said that you ca refuse at your own risk, because once you catch a bug, I'm protecting myself from your choice to be a petri dish for disease.


You wrote:




> I can see mandating insurance to cover things like immunization (because if you become a carrier of a nasty bacteria or virus that could kill me solely because you refuse to get immunized, I think I ought to have the right to shoot you and burn your corpse on the spot),


"Mandating" and sacking my corpse are pretty strong words.

Guess what?

I retain the *same* right when your vaccinated body becomes the mutagen carrier vehicle for a new, deadlier strain of virus.

----------


## foofighter20x

> I retain the *same* right when your vaccinated body becomes the mutagen carrier vehicle for a new, deadlier strain of virus.


You do know that vaccines come in forms where the nasty critter is already dead, right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You do know that vaccines come in forms where the nasty critter is already dead, right?


And some come in forms where the virus is live.

_Nasal H1N1 vaccine contains live virus cultures.

Centers for Disease Control_

http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/freeresources...is-flulive.pdf

----------


## osan

> ...if you become a carrier of a nasty bacteria or virus that could kill me solely because you refuse to get immunized, I think I ought to have the right to shoot you and burn your corpse on the spot),


You are free to "think" anything you like.  Acting on your opinion would most likely get you introduced to body parts you were unaware you possessed, or a prison sentence at the very least.

If credibility was on your list of important things to have and keep, I am most regretful in having to alert you to the fact that whatever amount you may have once had just winged away into the mists.





 but not against things like poor diet choices, poor lifestyle choices, or cancer, or any other catastrophic illnesses that pose no direct danger to me.

However, it's with respect to these latter things that the left wants to force people to get coverage.[/QUOTE]

----------


## sluggo

> Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that nobody questions Congress authority for such an action.
> 
> CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
> 
> Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
> 
> CNSNews.com: "Im asking--"
> 
> Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, theres no question theres authority. Nobody questions that."
> ...


I called my Senator's office and asked this same question.

They said Article 1, Section 8.

The person on the phone wouldn't say anymore than that.

----------


## Matt Collins



----------


## Chester Copperpot

i didnt even know about this article till now... has anybody called up Leahy and asked him?

----------


## devil21

Interstate Commerce Clause eh?  That's some heavy circular logic at work.  I can't even put it into words that make sense.

"We can regulate interstate commerce that we are forcing you to participate in, therefore we have authority to force you to participate in interstate commerce."

WTF?  And isn't health insurance already provided by companies organized by state?  So when you buy health insurance you are buying it "in-state" already.  Where is the "interstate" part?  

These $#@!ers need to go.

----------


## Bob Krack

> I called my Senator's office and asked this same question.
> 
> They said Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> The person on the phone wouldn't say anymore than that.


I agree with what I think you are saying.  Perhaps the person on the phone can point to the individual line below?


"SECTION. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the
United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fi x the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To defi ne and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on
the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the
land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Offi cers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as
may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance
of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;
-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Bob

----------


## torchbearer

> I agree with what I think you are saying.  Perhaps the person on the phone can point to the individual line below?
> 
> 
> "SECTION. 8.
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
> for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
> States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
> throughout the United States;
> ...


you notice national forest are not listed either.

----------


## constituent

> you notice national forest are not listed either.


nor.... oh f* it.

----------


## sluggo

> Interstate Commerce Clause eh?  That's some heavy circular logic at work.  I can't even put it into words that make sense.
> 
> "We can regulate interstate commerce that we are forcing you to participate in, therefore we have authority to force you to participate in interstate commerce."
> 
> WTF?  And isn't health insurance already provided by companies organized by state?  So when you buy health insurance you are buying it "in-state" already.  Where is the "interstate" part?  
> 
> These $#@!ers need to go.


It was Kay Hagan's office, and the girl on the phone said that Article 1, Section 8 is what she _heard_ was what gave them the authority. Very non-committal.

She was more interested in repeating the same old empty platitudes about, "we need to make sure that every American citizen has access to affordable health care, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

And no, I don't know why I bother.

----------


## Matt Collins

Here is Rep Pelosi's take on it:







YouTube - Pelosi Asked Where Constitution Grants Congress Authority to Mandate Purchase of Health Insurance

----------


## devil21

> It was Kay Hagan's office, and the girl on the phone said that Article 1, Section 8 is what she _heard_ was what gave them the authority. Very non-committal.
> 
> She was more interested in repeating the same old empty platitudes about, "we need to make sure that every American citizen has access to affordable health care, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
> 
> And no, I don't know why I bother.


I figure they'd lean back on the good ol "General Welfare" clause if pressed on it.

----------

