-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
There is plenty of nonsense in this Newsweek dissection of the “top 5 lies” in the health care debate, but this one takes the cake: “But when fear and loathing hijack the brain, anything becomes believable-even that health-care reform is unconstitutional. To disprove that, check the commerce clause: Article I, Section 8.”
Umm, what in Article I, Section 8 gives the federal government anything like the powers contained in Obamacare? Certainly the interstate commerce clause doesn’t, since most medical transactions are actually intrastate. And even to the extent that health care does affect interstate commerce, does it do so more than slavery or the sale of alcoholic beverages — both of which had to be banned by constitutional amendment rather than through the interstate commerce clause?
Of course, I understand that the doctrine of enumerated powers doesn’t mean much to the people who make our laws or the people who write about politics. It hasn’t meant much to them for some time. But give me a break.
View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/02/newsweeks-biggest-lie-about-th
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The Great Train Robbery
- A Nation on the Edge
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ncatty| 9.2.09 @ 3:27PM
The great issue of the day is whether there are any restraints on the reach of the federal government at all? If the constitution is not to be taken seriously, then any legislation enacted by Congress and signed by the President is beyond challenge. The third branch of government has no role. But the people are letting it happen, so we cannot complain that it is being done in secret.
Tim| 9.2.09 @ 3:58PM
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 fix 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 define 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 Officers, 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.
Missy| 9.2.09 @ 3:58PM
I don't think the people are letting it happen; we're just trying to figure out what to do next. I don't sense passivity among the folks.
Tim| 9.2.09 @ 3:59PM
Must be in the penumbra...
Nobama| 9.2.09 @ 4:02PM
The liberals are talking about the "Living, breathing" Constitution, right? You know--the Constitution that grows and morphs into anything liberals want--like unfettered abortion for all.
Penumbras!
Nobama| 9.2.09 @ 4:03PM
Tim--great minds think alike! Ha.
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 4:07PM
Ed Driscoll » “Newsweek’s Biggest Lie About The Constitution” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
BigJava| 9.2.09 @ 4:15PM
Let's see...nonsense and Newsweek. Yes, one and the same.
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 4:27PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Newsweek's Biggest Lie links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 9.2.09 @ 4:28PM
Nobama
Maybe it's in the Obanumbra?
Look at it, where they wanted a post office, they said POST OFFICE. Where they wanted a NAVY they said NAVY. Now they want us to believe that something that will cost more than both of those things combined was simply not spelled out?
Bob| 9.2.09 @ 4:30PM
So, Antle, you obviously believe that Medicare is unconstitutional. Where is your article on the unconstitutionality of Medicare? Where are you telling the tea party people to ask for Medicare to be rescinded? I don't see this on Fox News. Please be consistent on this if you are going to make an issue of it....
W. James Antle III | 9.2.09 @ 4:40PM
Bob: Happily. Medicare is unconstitutional. Social Security is unconstitutional. The vast majority of all federal spending is unconstitutional. Now, that doesn't mean the constitutional position is the popular position. If we by some strange accident elected a president who actually tried to follow the Constitution, Congress would surely have him impeached!
Patriot| 9.2.09 @ 4:42PM
Any "RINO" who voted for the failed Marxist, Obama, is an idiot who should NOT be seen or heard.
Hank Archer| 9.2.09 @ 4:43PM
A few years ago, during an arguement, a liberal actually lost his temper when I read a passage from the Constitution and said, "I don't care what the Constitution says!"
He did not seem to realize the irony of his outburst.
Red Phillips | 9.2.09 @ 4:47PM
Great post Jim! One beneficial thing about this health care debate is that it has actually got people talking about the enumerated powers doctrine. The astute liberal will certainly then ask, "Well if health care reform is unconstitutional, do you think Medicare is unconstitutional?" The answer is of course yes, but that kind of challenge has mainstream conservatives asking themselves questions and taking stock of their own beliefs and is in effect radicalizing them. One cannot be a selective constitutionalist. Either health care reform AND Medicare are unconstitutional or neither are.
Red Phillips | 9.2.09 @ 4:50PM
I didn't see the exchange between Bob and Jim above before I posted my comment. I'll submit it as exhibit A.
ncatty| 9.2.09 @ 4:54PM
And to keep the logic going, if the federal government is de facto unrestrained except by what Congress passes and the President signs, then what kind of government do we have? It can't be called a constitutional republic. Not quite a pure democracy either. Something else.
Hank Archer| 9.2.09 @ 5:07PM
Bob,
Without doing any research, I can still guarantee you that many conservatives/libertarians made the argument that Medicare was unconstitutional at the time of its proposal, and have continued to do so in the years since its adoption.
Keep in mind that conservative/libertarian is not synonomus with Republican.
Bob| 9.2.09 @ 5:43PM
Jim/Hank/Red --
You obviously see my point here from a political perspective. If you are going to make the argument that government health care is unconstitutional, then you MUST also make the argument that Medicare is unconstitutional. If you do that, you will lose the vote of seniors. If Republicans lose the vote of seniors, the party will disappear.
But you never hear any conservative in these town hall meetings have the huevos to say this. This makes anyone who talks about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare totally unprincipled.
If you notice, Antle did not make the statement. Why? Because he's more politically driven than principle driven. In reality, true conservatives should be calling for the repeal of Social Security and Medicare. However, I don't see any articles or blogs here calling for that. I don't hear Limbaugh or Beck calling for that. It seems that virtually all extreme right wing conservatives lack this kind of principled integrity.
By the way, I am not saying that liberals have any principled integrity either. All politicians and political commentators are hacks in my opinion -- right or left.
Ran| 9.2.09 @ 6:03PM
BOB, damn it man...
YOU, of all commenters, ought not come here discussing "principled integrity." Do you really want to continue this line of criticism?
"I don't hear Limbaugh or Beck calling for [the repeal of Social Security and Medicare]." That's only because you don't listen. They have been - for years. Your dissimulation amounts to yet *another* lie.
SoCon| 9.2.09 @ 6:22PM
Watch your blood pressure, Ran--"BOOB" is not worth it! LOL
Ran| 9.2.09 @ 7:39PM
SoCon - Yeah. Sorry for the tone. Broke my own rule, too, first time since May? June?
To the good, Mr Antle's point about the limits of enumerated powers is filtering out there into consciousness, despite the public screwl system's bias against the Constitution. We can thank Obama, in part, for his brazen use of the term "negative rights." Without that canard there would be less reason for the public cry of "Fowl!" [Er, something like that.]
W. James Antle III | 9.2.09 @ 8:04PM
"If you notice, Antle did not make the statement."
Well, the article I was discussing made a specific claim about the Obama health care plan. It didn't make one about Medicare or Social Security. But when you asked, I did in fact say that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. So is the Federal Reserve and most of what the federal government does.
As far as the difference between politics and principle is concerned, I don't see why the fact I can't successfully repeal every unconstitutional federal program that has already passed means I can't oppose new unconstitutional legislation that has a good chance of being defeated.
Missy| 9.2.09 @ 8:28PM
Bob and his ilk use Alinsky's tactics in their arguments. Bob doesn't argue in good faith.
There's no point in debating the schmuck; you're just arguing with his astroturf agenda.
Dave Lincoln| 9.2.09 @ 8:32PM
"Happily. Medicare is unconstitutional. Social Security is unconstitutional. The vast majority of all federal spending is unconstitutional."
Right, on, James Antle III. You the man! I have not read this truth on The Spectator before (but I could have missed a week or so.)
Dave Lincoln| 9.2.09 @ 8:46PM
"I have not read this truth on The Spectator before..." I should have added " in the articles." I've read plenty of words defending the Constitution in the comments, some of them, ahem, by me. ;-)
BTW, I gotta admit that Bob has a point, though not against Jim Antle. This is maybe another first (but I could have missed a week or so). You are right Bob, that it is very unprincipled to say nothing as the seniors fight against the socialist health care scheme by saying "don't cut my Medicare!" Indeed, that is total bunk.
I don't watch TV and listen to much talk radio, so I don't see a lot of Glenn Beck don't listen to Rush (excepting the band from Toronto). I have nothing against either of them - they may be principled on this matter, contrary to what you say, but I don't know.
I wrote a comment about this before, about the seniors (some of them - there are many, of course, who do have a good understanding of what is unconstitutional and are principled). They raise hell at the townhall meetings for the wrong reasons it seems. They just want to protect their turf, it seems, via the mantra of Abraham Simpson's "I'm old, gimme, gimme, gimme!" Then it's on to the early bird special for the meatloaf (the meat, not the rock-n-roll singer), creamed corn, and 7 flavors of jello. Some of these people are the "useful idiots" of the conservative side in this debate. So, Bob, I see your point. But, they are OUR idiots, and we love em to death.
Dave Lincoln| 9.2.09 @ 8:49PM
BTW, that is not meant to be an indictment of people in general raising hell at the townhall meetings and other venues (a good thing!), or even seniors at those places. I'm just referring to seniors who are all about "don't cut my medicare!". It is as unconstitutional as SS and the new socialist program that the Dems are trying to ram through.
Liberal Reader| 9.2.09 @ 9:18PM
Mr Antle:
If Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, why does not one single Republican run against Medicare or Social Security? Why didn't Reagan?
Time for conservatives to grow a pair. If you want to end these things, please, please, please go on the record -- and do it loud. Use Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the whole deal: let it ring from the rooftops:
REPUBLICANS VOW TO END SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
Then and only then will I believe that conservatives are "principled."
Daisy| 9.2.09 @ 9:48PM
What Alinsky Rule did you just employ, LR/Jeremiah? An astroturf troll lecturing us about principles: Rank hypocrisy or Axelrod piffle?
Doesn't matter, they're both the same.
Paul| 9.2.09 @ 9:50PM
Liberal Reader,
Let me follow your logic. If a democratic congress has passed a series of unconstitutional laws, and you out of principal resist adding yet another unconstitutional law, you are a hypocrite? Stopping the addition of new unconstitutional laws on their own merit is a principled act in and of itself.
How's about this for a principled argument and a solution to boot? Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be repealed. However, those who have already paid into the system should be awarded back what they have paid into the system including interest and penalties? For those over a certain age, this payment would in effect be the equivalent of their current projected benefits. An annuity could be set up for this purpose. Surtaxes and other mechanisms could be set up to fund this annuity.
Since the current SS and Medicare systems are both unsustainable it seems criminal (as well as unconstitutional) to have young people pay into a system that will likely go bankrupt before they can collect.
Sue| 9.2.09 @ 11:15PM
W. James Antle III: You, sir, are after my own heart. The liberals have used the SS and Medicare arguments for decades now. Yes, they are unconstitutional and the only way Roosevelt and Johnson was able to "constitutionalize" them was by "taxifying" these social programs. That's why there is no "guarantee" to any rights under these programs. POOF! THEY COULD DISAPPEAR TOMORROW.
Health care run by the government will be no different. They will have to pass "taxes," then allocate the money to the states and the states will have to create another huge bureaucracy, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That's why your SS disability claims and other issues with these social programs are run through the states.
Oh, to be a looting politician who utilizes the "compact" so devilishly and right under the noses of the very citizens who should be STANDING UP shouting from the rooftops. But, no, they've effectively managed to "buy" their silence too.
Sue| 9.2.09 @ 11:19PM
I seem to remember one president very recently who tried to "privatize" SS, but his b**** were ripped off and demonized so much as to be called the "devil."
So, like I said above, "politicians devilishly looting from us" and when one comes along who does want to change the system, guess what? These same politicos "devilify" him.
I'm on that kick - "ify" words. Some may even be "made up" but so was the constitutionality of SS and Medicare.
Red Phillips | 9.2.09 @ 11:23PM
Liberal Reader, Ron Paul is on the record that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. He has also said that they can't be practically ended immediately. Ron Paul 2012, BTW!
Now speaking for myself, they should be gradually phased out. How to go about restoring Constitutional government now that we are so far beyond it is an issue where serious conservative thinkers need to start trying to come up with a plan.
But do you believe SS and Medicare are Constitutional? What Article and section authorize them? Otherwise make the historical case that the enumerated powers doctrine was not the intent or the Founders.
Red Phillips | 9.2.09 @ 11:28PM
"But you never hear any conservative in these town hall meetings have the huevos to say this. This makes anyone who talks about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare totally unprincipled. "
Bob, selective silence is not necessarily unprincipled. I do think it is unprincipled if conservatives deny what they believe if asked, or if they were to defend the constitutionality of Medicare. In my experience mainstream conservative do not make a specific case for the constitutionality of Medicare, they just consider it a done deal.
Daisy| 9.2.09 @ 11:47PM
"Ron Paul 2012." When pigs fly, Red.
Martin Nitschke | 9.2.09 @ 11:51PM
The people need to Fire Congress. Congress has done EVERYTHING, not the president. Congress rubber stamps it. http://FireCongress.org and we aren't asking for money!
Red Phillips | 9.3.09 @ 12:15AM
So Daisy, I take it you're not a Constitutionalist.
Daisy| 9.3.09 @ 12:57AM
Easy, Red; I was just funnin' with you a little bit. ;p
Marc Jeric| 9.3.09 @ 6:37AM
Of course the Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional - but it is too late to do anything about it. What is criminal that we have been paying trillions through specual taxes for SS and MC - which trillions have disappeared through current spending; thus the incredible Ponzi scheme with no precedent in history; that crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!
Solo| 9.3.09 @ 8:14AM
Red Phillips Wrote:
"So Daisy, I take it you're not a Constitutionalist. "
LOL! There we go again: another PaulBot who tries to conflate the Constitution with Ron Paul.
Sorry! No can do!
Opposition to Ron Paul's candidacy does not equal opposition to constitutional government.
Ron Paul is not the Constitution.
Tim| 9.3.09 @ 9:28AM
The Constitution means what five political appointees say it does. The text means nothing. NOTHING. Your Bobs and Liberal Readers are fine with that. This is democracy in America in 2009.
Bob| 9.3.09 @ 10:18AM
Guys, I give Antle credit for being consistent, but not being principled -- and I respect him for his position. A principled position would tell seniors that all government health, including Medicare, should be rescinded. But Antle and others know that taking that principled position out loud will hurt their fight against Obamacare. Why? Because seniors overwhelmingly like Medicare. Therefore, they are not principled when dealing with seniors.
I have seen no articles here from Tyrrell and others calling for rescinding Medicare on the grounds of constitutionality. I guess their position is to do anything to win....
If any of you loons notice, there has never been a Supreme Court challenge to Medicare. If it is unconstitutional, why not?
Personally, either you think that health care is a right, or it is a privilege. If it is a right, then the government should provide it for everyone. If it is a privilege, the government should provide it for no one. Furthermore, if it is a privilege, we should not force doctors and hospitals to serve those not covered.
I don't see a "half pregnant" position here. In the end, it is a moral decision. If you are willing to let sick people die because something is unconstitutional, be principled and make your case.
sean| 9.3.09 @ 11:23AM
You forgot to add that it required a constitutional amendment for the federal government to prohibit the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana. There is such an amendment, right?
Tim| 9.3.09 @ 11:32AM
Bob, how about a simpler policy: Our elected representatives actually vote on things that affect our lives, and where the Constitution needs amending they actually do the hard work of accomplishing that?
Instead we get law from courts, apellate and supreme, plus endless government regulations promulgated by political hacks heading up various agencies.
Red Phillips | 9.3.09 @ 12:32PM
Solo, I'm sorry but Ron Paul is the only elected Republican at the national level who is a consistent constitutionalists. This is just a fact. If you disagree please name me another one. Until recently most talk of Constitutionalism was confined to the third parties and the outside the mainstream "far-right." There is no other elected national Republican who would touch the unconstitutionality of Medicare with a ten foot pole.
Red Phillips | 9.3.09 @ 12:35PM
sean, the FDA, like so much else, is grossly unconstitutional. The mere fact of the existence of a law or agency does not make it constitutional.
sean| 9.3.09 @ 12:52PM
Yeah, I know I was being sarcastic
Daisy| 9.3.09 @ 1:15PM
See what I mean, Sean? Ha ha.
Daisy| 9.3.09 @ 1:19PM
"Boob" the RINO--who voted for Obama--is lecturing us about principles. Wrap your brain around that one, people; at least you have one.
cellofello| 9.4.09 @ 8:46AM
Actually, Newsweek might have had a better argument referring to the "general Welfare" clause rather than the commerce clause. Question: are expenditures on the Surgeon General and the National Institutes of Health unconstitutional? I can't find any enumerated power other than the general welfare clause to justify them. But if you allow those, it's harder to reject out of hand the idea that Congress is permitted no greater role in seeing that the citizens of the United States are healthy.
And to be clear: I think that regardless of what one feels about the general desirability of universal health insurance, the specific plan on the table has some serious defects. I'm just not convinced that constitutionality is one of them.
Jeremiah| 9.4.09 @ 1:41PM
Who gives a crap about the Constitution anymore? Liberals use it for toilet paper. Cretins.