Did WH check Healthcare for Constitutionality? Gibbs: "Not that I know of".

[Little-Acorn]

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs is starting to run out of answers as more and more people question whether mandatory government Health Care is Constitutional. Today all he could say was "I don't know" when reporters asked him if the President was examining the question. One reporter didn't let it go, and eventually Gibbs gave a confused reply suggesting the reporter ask Orrin Hatch whether the President had considered it.

The leftists are losing their grip more and more, as pointed question keep getting asked and they find themselves either (a) unable to answer, or worse, (b) not wanting to answer when the truth will undermine their agenda.

-----------------------------

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56491

Gibbs Says He Doesn’t Know if White House Has Reviewed Constitutionality of Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance

Monday, November 02, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that he does not know if White House lawyers have reviewed whether it is constitutional for the federal government to order individuals to buy health insurance and said that the White House is not seriously considering the concerns of people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) who believe the mandate is not constitutionally justified.

This was the second time in two weeks that Gibbs had dismissed concerns that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force individuals to purchase items the government wants them to purchase.

Hatch told CNSNews.com last week that forcing people to buy health insurance cannot be justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

“But here would be the first time where our government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want,” Hatch told CNSNews.com. “And, you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound. Now, there may be some gimmicky way that they can do this, but I can’t think of a gimmicky way that would be constitutionally justified.”

Gibbs was asked by a reporter on Monday: “Have White House lawyers looked at this issue? Has this been examined in any way?”

Gibbs responded: “Not that I know of. I don’t think it has gotten to the point where anybody questions the legitimacy of it.”

The reporter followed up: “Well, Orrin Hatch questions the legitimacy of it.” Gibbs quipped, “Well, you should ask him.”

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Goverment already provides health care for people...what makes you think providing it for more people would change anything?

also him not knowing if he checked...does not mean he did not check...also given his area of knowlage in teaching...bet he has a pretty good idea without having to check with people....Also last I checked...its not his job...congress and the Senate are working on it...he has nothing he is asked to sign...so how do you check something that is not done yet? hmmmm

 

[AtheismIsReality]

ER's are forced to treat patients if they cannot pay. Is that Constitutional?

 

[Hanno]

The duty of emergency rooms falls in the 'to drive past the scene of an accident without stopping' bin - I forget the exact term - in itself, I think none of the federal government's business. But shall we make a resource of people's obligations to one another in catastrophic circumstances? I mean, how much could ever be achieved that way?

 

[Bunz]

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs is starting to run out of answers as more and more people question whether mandatory government Health Care is Constitutional. Today all he could say was "I don't know" when reporters asked him if the President was examining the question. One reporter didn't let it go, and eventually Gibbs gave a confused reply suggesting the reporter ask Orrin Hatch whether the President had considered it.

"I dont know." Imagine that, an honest answer. The Press Secretary is not in every meeting, they dont know everything. Id rather have someone give me an honest answer in "I dont know" rather than having my shoe pissed on and told me its raining like happens daily throughout the "Conservative" movement.
Hell, instead of simply saying "I dont know"(and ignoring those who did) the Bush Administration drove us into a war of occupation on utterly false pretenses. I wish Ari Fliescher would have said IDK more than a few times.

The leftists are losing their grip more and more, as pointed question keep getting asked and they find themselves either (a) unable to answer, or worse, (b) not wanting to answer when the truth will undermine their agenda.

While I dont doubt that the GOP will name gains in the next few elections, and will likely do well in the three big special elections that are happening tomorrow(today by the time most anyone reads this). I think the righties in the fishbowl over at Fox News are going to create a larger backlash if the kind of absolutely irresponsible journalism continues for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bunz]

ER's are forced to treat patients if they cannot pay. Is that Constitutional?

Yes.

filler filler

 

[Bunz]

The duty of emergency rooms falls in the 'to drive past the scene of an accident without stopping' bin - I forget the exact term - in itself, I think none of the federal government's business.

I think you are referring to various good samaritan laws. But that doesnt have much with your argument.

But shall we make a resource of people's obligations to one another in catastrophic circumstances?

Yes.

I mean, how much could ever be achieved that way?

Tons. Look at America and its freedom, security, economic power, and quality of life has risen expotentially since the 16th amendment. Personally I think the income tax is what started the path to becoming a world superpower. Those who wish to go back to America in those days are free to move to South Africa, America was more like modern day SA.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't think they care if it is Constitutional or not. They assume the courts will decide. And they know the courts can just rule it to be constitutional even if it is clearly not.

This is different than other examples given in that the gov is telling people that they must buy something.

 

[chestnut]

Yes.

filler filler

Did you realize that when Hospitals have to treat those that can't pay tha the hospital gets to re-claim some of that money from the Federal Govt.

But the doctors, who, most times, do not work directly for the hospital, get diddly.

It happened here in FL. Radiologist group kept having to read film for those patients in the E.R., but never got paid.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

The courts will say the government has the right to regulate the health care system through the interstate commerce clause. That coupled with the government's duty to protect the country will make it a lock.

 

[Andy]

Yes.

filler filler

No. Not if it's enforced from the Federal level, which I think it is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The courts will say the government has the right to regulate the health care system through the interstate commerce clause.

The Lopez case (1995) makes that less likely.

Or did you mean the Welfare Clause? I made that mistake myself, not long ago. Several high-ranking Dems have already tried to cite the Welfare Clause as authority for the Fed to get involved in Health Care.

But the Welfare Clause says nothing of the kind. In full context, it says that the Fed has authority to collect taxes, and to spend them to provide for defense and "the general welfare".

But when the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "welfare" recognized: "General welfare", which meant the well-being and prosperity of all Americans equally, and "local welfare", which meant well-being and prosperity of isolated groups or individuals over others.

The Framers had long arguments over what the "Welfare Clause" they had just included into the Constitution, meant. They had written the Constitution with the idea that it created the Fed govt, and asigned it its powers; and that the Fed had only the powers it listed and no others. Some said that the "Welfare Clause" meant Congress could spend money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if those programs weren't specifically named elsewhere in the Constitution. As such, the "Welfare Clause" slightly expanded the power of the Fed govt beyond the powers specifically listed. Others said that the "Welfare Clause" did NOT add any powers beyond those already listed.

But neither group of Framers, said that it added the power to run programs that benefitted only some Americans (such as Health care). They all agreed that it did not. 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that the former group was correct: the Welfare Clause gave Congress the power to spend tax money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if they weren't specifically listed in the Constitution... but not programs that benefitted only certain groups.

The "Welfare Clause" is actually a restriction on the Federal govt, prohibiting it from running things like Health Care (only benefits people who don't have insurance), as well as Social Security, OSHA, Welfare, etc. It is one of the more-violated parts of the Constitution. But thankfully, with the increasing abuse by big-government fanatics, normal people are finally starting to notice that.

 

[Hanno]

I think you are referring to various good samaritan laws. But that doesnt have much with your argument.

Then why do you think it? What I'm referring to is some states don't like it when you just sit back and watch this or that horrible thing happen. Emergency rooms have the capability to stop bleeding, they tend to be the places people go when under that type of duress, so if someone gets carted in with a neck wound, anything other than stopping the bleeding is liable to be called dirty pool.

Income tax is actually a decent example - started out a war-time thing, now the war never ends.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Lopez case (1995) makes that less likely.

Or did you mean the Welfare Clause?

He was probably right to think of the commerce clause. The fed has used the commerce clause to pass through much legislation that they could not find another justification for.

I think there needs to be a law that says that a bill can only make one law and that law must be related to the thing it is intended to do.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

The Lopez case (1995) makes that less likely.

Or did you mean the Welfare Clause? I made that mistake myself, not long ago. Several high-ranking Dems have already tried to cite the Welfare Clause as authority for the Fed to get involved in Health Care.

But the Welfare Clause says nothing of the kind. In full context, it says that the Fed has authority to collect taxes, and to spend them to provide for defense and "the general welfare".

But when the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "welfare" recognized: "General welfare", which meant the well-being and prosperity of all Americans equally, and "local welfare", which meant well-being and prosperity of isolated groups or individuals over others.

The Framers had long arguments over what the "Welfare Clause" they had just included into the Constitution, meant. They had written the Constitution with the idea that it created the Fed govt, and asigned it its powers; and that the Fed had only the powers it listed and no others. Some said that the "Welfare Clause" meant Congress could spend money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if those programs weren't specifically named elsewhere in the Constitution. As such, the "Welfare Clause" slightly expanded the power of the Fed govt beyond the powers specifically listed. Others said that the "Welfare Clause" did NOT add any powers beyond those already listed.

But neither group of Framers, said that it added the power to run programs that benefitted only some Americans (such as Health care). They all agreed that it did not. 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that the former group was correct: the Welfare Clause gave Congress the power to spend tax money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if they weren't specifically listed in the Constitution... but not programs that benefitted only certain groups.

The "Welfare Clause" is actually a restriction on the Federal govt, prohibiting it from running things like Health Care (only benefits people who don't have insurance), as well as Social Security, OSHA, Welfare, etc. It is one of the more-violated parts of the Constitution. But thankfully, with the increasing abuse by big-government fanatics, normal people are finally starting to notice that.

Psst, here's a hint - the Framers don't determine what the Constitution means. The people living under it do. It's "We the People" not "We the guys who met in Philadelphia."

Just because you frame the health care reform as benefiting some and not others does not make it so. I say not allowing the health care system to collapse so tens of millions lose access to health care which will inevitably hurt the nation in the long run benefits everyone. But hey, I'm opening to defining "benefits."