Judge Napolitano Pops the Health Care Constitutionality Question

[OldRegular]

September 8th, 2009 5:46 pm

http://libertymaven.com/2009/09/08/...-health-care-constitutionality-question/7163/

Judge Napolitano took another “Anti Ron Paul” to task over support of government health care. In fact, Judge Napolitano asked the one question we Constitutionalists have wanted to ask all of the health reform supporters in Congress. Is government health care Constitutional? We all know how Ron Paul and many free market supporters answer that question. How does an “Anti Ron Paul” justify the opposing answer?

The Judge’s target was House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC). In a 13 minute plus interview Clyburn said some rather telling but unsurprising things. I’ve included the entire interview audio below. I don’t want to be attacked for taking his words out of context. If you’d like to only hear the Constitutional question portion then jump to 5:00 in the audio at the bottom of the article.

First the discussion is about Clyburn’s idea to have a 3 year “test” period for health reform. The Judge chimes in and correctly surmises that it’s just a slower path to the public option.* During Clyburn’s next remarks he mixes up the meaning of words. He says the following:

“So what is a fact to me, may not be a fact to you. So what kind of independent facts can we develop?“

Ridiculous. This is the 3rd ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. He doesn’t know the difference between “fact” and “opinion”.

The Judge then pops the question: “Where in the Constitution is the federal government charged with maintaining people’s health?”

Clyburn’s answer: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

The Judge charges back a bit later: “You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You can’t go outside the Constitution because you think it is a good thing to do without violating that oath!”

Clyburn replies: “How about show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”

The Judge then, of course, cites the 10th Amendment. Listen to the entire audio below to hear Clyburn’s sad and predictable follow-up.

This is the fundamental argument of our time and sadly it isn’t being argued enough. This is evidenced by The Judge’s co-host changing the subject following the exchange. Clyburn is now on record as violating his oath willingly. At least now we don’t have to rely on his litany of unconstitutional votes alone. It is unlikely he’ll lose his seat given the district he is in, but he certainly deserves to be voted out of office along with many others who willingly violate their oath of office on an almost daily basis.

OldRegular says: Clyburn's district was gerrymandered to ensure the election of a black!

 

[Johnv]

People can argue constitutionality until they're blue in the face. But constitionality of a law can only be determined by the courts. Some have, for example, argued the constitutionality of Medicare, but to date, no litigant has challenged the Constitutional basis of the Medicare act.

 

[OldRegular]

People can argue constitutionality until they're blue in the face. But constitionality of a law can only be determined by the courts. Some have, for example, argued the constitutionality of Medicare, but to date, no litigant has challenged the Constitutional basis of the Medicare act.

I agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter but anyone with half a brain should know that the Federal government's attempt to take over the health care industry is unconstitutional and that forcing people to buy medical insurance is unconstitutional.

 

[canadyjd]

People can argue constitutionality until they're blue in the face. But constitionality of a law can only be determined by the courts. Some have, for example, argued the constitutionality of Medicare, but to date, no litigant has challenged the Constitutional basis of the Medicare act.

Medicare is a voluntary program. No one is forced by the government to enroll, even though everyone who works is taxed to pay for it.

The proposals for government run health care, OTOH, force people and companies to buy insurance or enroll in plans; or face government sanctions (i.e. taxes). This is an "involuntary" enrollment into the programs that many see as unconstitutional.

Make no mistake, if such a plan becomes law, it will be challenged in court.

peace to youraying:

 

[Johnv]

Good point. Assuming Medicare, which is voluntary, is constitutional, then it stands to reason that public funded healthcare would likewise be constitutional, so long as it likewise is voluntary. You're right, however, about a court challenge. Regardless of what plan becomes codified, I can't see it NOT being legally challenged.

 

[Revmitchell]

People can argue constitutionality until they're blue in the face. But constitionality of a law can only be determined by the courts. Some have, for example, argued the constitutionality of Medicare, but to date, no litigant has challenged the Constitutional basis of the Medicare act.

This is absurd. It either is or it isn't regardless of what the court or anyone says. The truth has already been established when the constitution was created. The fact that an activist court comes along and creates a new definition is not germain to this issue.

 

[Johnv]

So, the answer is that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, but if the courts don't rule the way we see it, then they're activist?

 

[Revmitchell]

So, the answer is that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, but if the courts don't rule the way we see it, then they're activist?

You should refrain from further characterization of my words. That way you are not wrong so much. Of course you insisted that no one else should hold a view on the constitution except the courts and we should all just sit around and wait for them to tell us what it says.And you gave room for anything goes on the courts.None of which is true.

 

[OldRegular]

Where are those stalwart defenders of the leftist/Fascist Obama, MP and "whoever"?

 

[Johnv]

You should refrain from further characterization of my words.

Your words are self-evident. It is a matter of fact that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and the courts alone, and not by public opinion (you think that's absurd, even though that's a matter of objective fact).

According to yoru prior post, it is your opinion that, if the courts don't rule the way we see it, then you consider that court activist.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your words are self-evident. It is a matter of fact that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and the courts alone, and not by public opinion (you think that's absurd, even though that's a matter of objective fact).

According to yoru prior post, it is your opinion that, if the courts don't rule the way we see it, then you consider that court activist.

You will have to present the post where I gave those exact words. When you don't you can apologize.

 

[OldRegular]

It is a matter of fact that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and the courts alone, and not by public opinion (you think that's absurd, even though that's a matter of objective fact).

It is also a matter of fact that the opinions of the courts are driven more by ideology than by the wording of the Constitution.

 

[Johnv]

You will have to present the post where I gave those exact words. When you don't you can apologize.

In post #6, you disagreed that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and you cited "activist judges".

It is also a matter of fact that the opinions of the courts are driven more by ideology than by the wording of the Constitution.

I dont' disagree with you, but that could be applied to every sitting SCOTUS court since 1791. In subjectivity, we usually only apply those to courts that don't cocur with our opinions (admittedly, I am among that number).

 

[Revmitchell]

In post #6, you disagreed that the constitionality of a law is determined by the courts, and you cited "activist judges".

None of this is true, you either have a reading comprehension issue or you are so blinded by your lack of objectivity when it comes to my posts that you are deceiving yourself. It is best to ask for clarification when you don't know rather than falsely characterize someones post.

 

[alatide]

Medicare is a voluntary program. No one is forced by the government to enroll, even though everyone who works is taxed to pay for it.

The proposals for government run health care, OTOH, force people and companies to buy insurance or enroll in plans; or face government sanctions (i.e. taxes). This is an "involuntary" enrollment into the programs that many see as unconstitutional.

Make no mistake, if such a plan becomes law, it will be challenged in court.

peace to youraying:

it seems to me that there's really no difference between the two. You are forced to pay for medicare but not to use it. You would be forced to pay for medical insurance but not to use it. What's the difference?

 

[tinytim]

Come on Alatide... read... the healthcare bill.. all of them have the word "Mandatory"...

That means Americans will be forced to have health insurance... whether they want it or not. Just because some big shot know it all in DC thinks he knows whats best for me and my family. It is an invasion into our freedom.

That's the difference.

 

[OldRegular]

Come on Alatide... read... the healthcare bill.. all of them have the word "Mandatory"...

That means Americans will be forced to have health insurance... whether they want it or not. Just because some big shot know it all in DC thinks he knows whats best for me and my family. It is an invasion into our freedom.

That's the difference.

Some folks in this country and some on this Forum think that Freedom is a luxury we do not deserve. Perhaps they are correct given hoe we have allowed it to be taken from us over the years.