Daily News header

Yes, Congresswoman Pelosi, We're Serious: On the Constitutionality of Obamacare

By

America anxiously awaits the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

At the core of the decision is a simple question: Is the "individual mandate" in Obamacare constitutional?

And thus, is Obamacare constitutional?

Several times during the debate and deliberation, my mind harkened back to the words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Remarking on the original Obamacare bill, Pelosi infamously said that first "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Even more outrageous was another Pelosi observation, especially given the pivotal role of the Supreme Court. In October 2009, Pelosi was asked by a reporter if the healthcare legislation was constitutional. Here's a transcript of the exchange:

Reporter: "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?"*

Reporter: "Yes, yes I am."
- CNSnews

Pelosi's incredulity at that perfectly reasonable question is as telling as it is stunning. She scorned the very thought, as if the reporter were either a total idiot, an unregenerate right-wing Neanderthal, or had flown in on a flying saucer from Neptune.

And yet, as Congresswoman Pelosi learned last week, the reporter had hit the crux of the issue. So did state attorneys general nationwide, who quickly filed lawsuits precisely on whether Obamacare is constitutional.

Pelosi's contempt for that notion - apparently shared by many of her "progressive" colleagues - has come back to bite her and President Obama and the entirety of the progressive/liberal movement.

Democrats who scoff at such questions do so at their own peril. There is another branch of government in this country; it's called the judiciary. And that branch for over 200 years has been tasked with exactly such a duty: that is, reviewing the constitutionality of legislation.

Pelosi's behavior does greater disservice to the goals of her own party than to conservatives

Ironically, Pelosi's behavior does a greater disservice to the goals of her own party than to conservatives. Liberals need to step back and understand what has unraveled with Obamacare: Their party leaders flagrantly ignored legitimate constitutional objections (and numerous other criticisms) raised by opponents. These objections were so well-placed that they now hold the potential to place a dagger in the heart of their prized legislation. If the individual mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, then the entire Obamacare legislation might be finished, given that the individual mandate is the chief funding mechanism for the entire program.

Even then, the constitutional problems don't end there. Next up, probably next year, will be the Obama-HHS mandate requiring every American, including all religious believers and institutions - with the Catholic Church at the center of the controversy - to fund contraception and abortion drugs. Here, too, President Obama and his allies are pushing another mandate that will have to be reviewed by courts because of its blatant challenge to the Constitution - in this case, the First Amendment's freedom of religion and conscience.

Alas, this brings me to a sincere query for liberals: Why do you tolerate Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi (among others)? I could literally write a book on outrageous Pelosi comments uttered just in the last five years, from amazing statements like those quoted above to her breathtaking remarks on her own Catholic Church and its teachings on human life.

Why do Democrats accept such shoddy leadership? They are making their dearest plans vulnerable to immediate rejection by the constitutional process. If I were a progressive dreaming of universal healthcare, I would be extremely disappointed. As noted by Joe Postell, a scholar on the progressive movement, progressives have been trying to implement "universal healthcare" since literally 1912, when those words appeared in that year's Progressive Party platform. In 2009, they finally had their big chance, but may have blown it by ridiculing or ignoring - and not dealing with - their critics' objections.

Or, on the other hand, do they have such disrespect and disregard for their critics that they don't care what they say? If that's the case, it isn't prudent leadership. Think about your own life or career or home or company: For major decisions, don't you at least consider possible obstacles or pitfalls?

Someday, "progressives" may have a solid majority on the Supreme Court and can blithely dismiss the original intent of the Constitution. If Americans keep voting as they do, such a majority is a distinct possibility. For now, however, they ignore realities at their peril. Simply calling conservatives idiots isn't very smart.

Yes, Congresswoman Pelosi, we're serious.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

If you leave a comment and it does not display within 10 seconds, please refresh the page

* The views of Opinion writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze

Related Opinions News

Why the IRS is badly in need of a grammar lesson from Congress and the courts
This seems so counterintuitive to me. No offense to the Scandinavians, but when I think of happy places, the cities of the Nordic north do not quickly come to mind. Nevertheless, the statistics don't lie.
Spying on the AP thereby illegally threatening the freedom of the press.
The language that the two bishops use to advocate their personal legislative agendas is so specific in nature and so strident in tone that an unsuspecting listener might be led to assume that their views represent the authentic, magisterial teaching
Sadly, the NAACP feels embolden to lie about the tea party, confident that the mainstream media will not challenge them or demand proof of their outrageous allegations. The MSM gleefully distributes the NAACP's lies.
The setting for the story was an old Spanish-stylized house in Lake Worth, Florida. We moved there in 1964, when my father was sent by his denominational headquarters to plant a new church. I don't know exactly how old the house was, but suspect it

 

NewsBlaze Writers Of The Month



Popular Stories This Month

newsletter logo

What's Hot At NewsBlaze.com?
1 .Give a Great Valedictorian Speech - Joey Asher - 63
2 .Batman: Created by Bob Kane? - 53
3 .Interesting Facts About Dogs - 40
4 .America Now Governed By Tyranny - 32
5 .The Cold War - The Jimmy Carter Years (1976-80) - 25
6 .What Was a Motive for Murder for Femme Fatale Photographer Jodi Arias? - 13
7 .Censorship in America - 14
8 .Landmark Kathmandu Bookstore Gutted by Fire - 14
9 .Waterless 'Air Cooler PLUS' Beats Summer's Heat Without Making Your Home Muggy - 12
10.Does the Pink Viagra work? - 8
Updated: 8:45 PDT     1568

NewsBlaze Editors

editors

NewsBlaze Writers

news writer images

Writers Wanted

Help NewsBlaze provide daily news, including Business Top Stories, Technology, The Environment and more. Apply: NewsBlaze Writer

Follow NewsBlaze

NewsBlaze Social Media Logos NewsBlaze Facebook NewsBlaze LinkedIn NewsBlaze Twitter NewsBlaze YouTube NewsBlaze MySpace NewsBlaze Fan Page NewsBlaze StumbleUpon NewsBlaze Political Cartoons NewsBlaze Editorial Cartoons
NewsBlaze
Copyright © 2004-2013 NewsBlaze Pty. Ltd.
Use of this website is subject to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy  | DMCA Notice               Press Room   |    Visit NewsBlaze Mobile Site