The University of Idaho Argonaut

As part of the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, many of us have probably heard boring, historical-sounding arguments that talk about the Constitution. The argument we’ve heard probably sounds something like the following: “The Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to require or provide health insurance.”

Some of us have heard this argument many times in different forms, and we probably have a response in our head that sounds something like the following: “All right, Ron Paul (or whoever you are), I know you’re upset that the world isn’t the same as it was in 1787. Can’t you just stop pestering us with your history lessons and accept the fact that it’s the 21st century, and the government does a lot of things that they didn’t think of when they wrote the Constitution?” 

Any of us who have taken that approach need to stop and reconsider our position. The fatal flaw in that sort of response is the idea that the Constitution is more a historical document than a foundation for 21st century legislation.

However, until we have a civil war, a revolution, an invasion, or a massive restructuring of government the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Unless we decide to throw it out officially, it is just as relevant to government action today as it was 200 years ago.

If we care about the truth enough to give it an honest look, we find that the argument presented by the constitutionalists is completely valid. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal powers over the health care industry. This is not a mere oversight or something that can fit under another heading. One of the key purposes of the Constitution is to limit federal power by defining specifically what the federal government is allowed to do. Therefore, it follows very easily that it is illegal for Congress or the president to act outside of what the Constitution allows, which is exactly what our president and Congress are doing.

Is it dangerous and subversive for the federal government to act in the area of health care? No, probably not. But is it dangerous and subversive for the federal government to ignore the limits of the Constitution and seize any power it thinks necessary? Yes, definitely.

If Congress and the president believe it completely necessary to pass a health care reform bill, their first step — if they want to do it legally — must be to create an amendment to the Constitution that would give them the power to do so, which they currently do not have. Of course, it is much slower and more difficult to have an amendment ratified than to pass a bill in the House, and by the time it happens, power might have changed hands. Tough luck. This is still a country governed by the rule of law, and a party that wants to ignore the law in order to enact its policies should not be allowed to stay in power.

We may get annoyed by people who keep bringing up the Constitution in a health care discussion, but apparently they’re not annoying enough, because our leaders are continuing happily along as though their policies were legal. Allowing actions like this to go unchallenged lays the foundation for totalitarian government. That may sound extreme and alarmist, but if we dismiss the Constitution and allow the federal government to start seizing powers illegally, what are we going to cite when we want them to stop?

Send letters to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

	1. 20-11-2009 07:09
	Simple fix The simple solution, w/o a 2000 page bill or changing the constitution, is just better use of taxes. Just pay everyone a $25,000 yearly check with the income and FICA taxes collected. This will not only immediately eliminate poverty (by making every citizen a millionaire) and the need for any welfare, it will also enable people to pay for healthcare on their own:    1. People should pay for the minimal fees with regular office visits, tests and checkups out of their own pocket.    2. For injuries or illness give everyone a long-term interest free loan up to $100,000. Most people won't reach that amount, but if u do it is only $277 per month which is much less than today's insurance and its real cost will be completely eliminated in just 2 years from inflation.    3. have a federal insurance pool for expenses above those not covered in 1 and 2. The cost for each citizen would be less than $200 per month.    The debt for this program can be created by the FED. And the FED can print up to $1.5 trillion in new money every year w/o causing inflation to pay for whatever the federal govt wants to do outside of social security and healthcare.    To learn more about this idea visit FellowshipOfLuca.com it is actually an online version of the board game risk but promotes this philosophy as part of the game's theme. Registered

JaredTolle