Issue Date: 11/16/09
Conservatively Speaking: Madison rolling over in his grave
By Dan McCarthy
With the stench of cordite still lingering from the Left vs. Right fusillade levied on Capitol Hill these past months, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took the time to place herself squarely athwart the document that serves as perhaps the only entity confidant of her job security and also, in a minor and increasingly mitigated role, as the basis for all American governance.
In a bold, flamboyantly revolutionary and nauseatingly anti-government instance of journalistic infamy, a reporter from CNSNews.com, an obscure conservative-leaning media outlet I only learnt of from their involvement in this case, asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
She cackled back, "Are you serious?"
Said reporter responded, "Yes, yes I am."
There these crazy teabaggers go again, bringing up the Constitution and questioning the legitimacy of forced enrollment in a product pool.
Because, you know, that idea of liberty is overrated, overstated and diametrically opposed to the modern progressive movement.
Excuse us, how dare we.
I must retort, Madam Speaker, that the Constitution is not relegated to practical obsolescence merely because you find its bounds to be restrictive. Certainly it is you, not your opponents, whom these constraints were intended for.
In the sound bite's wake, Steny Hoyer (D-M.D.), the House majority leader offered a possible - though foundationally unreasoned - Constitutional go-ahead to require Americans to purchase a health care plan or go to jail: the general welfare clause.
Not so, Congressman.
The general welfare clause appears in two areas: once in the Preamble of the Constitution, and again in the eighth section of the first article, when listing the enumerated powers.
The former grants no power to any body of government, and is merely a pretext to the authoritative content. The latter, however, says this: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…"
In a bold, flamboyantly revolutionary and nauseatingly anti-government instance of journalistic infamy, a reporter from CNSNews.com, an obscure conservative-leaning media outlet I only learnt of from their involvement in this case, asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
She cackled back, "Are you serious?"
Said reporter responded, "Yes, yes I am."
There these crazy teabaggers go again, bringing up the Constitution and questioning the legitimacy of forced enrollment in a product pool.
Because, you know, that idea of liberty is overrated, overstated and diametrically opposed to the modern progressive movement.
Excuse us, how dare we.
I must retort, Madam Speaker, that the Constitution is not relegated to practical obsolescence merely because you find its bounds to be restrictive. Certainly it is you, not your opponents, whom these constraints were intended for.
In the sound bite's wake, Steny Hoyer (D-M.D.), the House majority leader offered a possible - though foundationally unreasoned - Constitutional go-ahead to require Americans to purchase a health care plan or go to jail: the general welfare clause.
Not so, Congressman.
The general welfare clause appears in two areas: once in the Preamble of the Constitution, and again in the eighth section of the first article, when listing the enumerated powers.
The former grants no power to any body of government, and is merely a pretext to the authoritative content. The latter, however, says this: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…"
Be the first to comment on this story