Yes Glenn Beck, Health Care reform is Constitutional
- January 4th, 2010
- Write comment
I have many bad habits that affect my health including a penchant for deep fried foods and alcohol. One bad habit that really raises my blood-pressure is my thrice-weekly habit of listening to Glenn Beck on my way to the office. On this fine morning, the self-righteous neophyte of knowledge was claiming that the Health Care reforms working their way through Congress are, in fact, Unconstitutional. True to his nature, Beck, did not spend any time pointing out which parts of the Constitution he thought would be violated, nor did he cite one single precedent-setting Supreme Court case to support his outlandish oratory. No surprise. I guess I’ll do all the “brain-thinky-work” for you, Glenn. There are two avenues that may be identified as possible paths to challenging the constitutionality of this bill. The first is what many commonly refer to as the “Commerce Clause”. For those of you who are factually and historically challenged like Mr. Beck, I will tell you that this clause is found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and authorizes Congress to: “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This clause, in conjunction with the “Necessary and Proper Clause”, has long been used to allow the government to expand rights and create social programs. People on the extreme right challenged the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that the Federal Government had no right to force white business owners to serve African Americans in the Supreme Court case: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. The racists lost, and the power of the “Commerce Clause” was re-affirmed. Additionally, if the country in general has accepted something as sweeping as the EMTALA law passed in 1986 (the one that says hospitals participating in medicare cannot turn away un-insured people who are about to die) then the hopes of striking down this partially-funded mandate is quite improbable. People on the right may be hoping that the current Supreme Court will take drastic action and overturn a century of precedent, but let’s be intellectually honest in this argument. The precedent is clear. The second place to look for guidance on this question of constitutionality is the “General Welfare” clause. Also found in Article I, Section 8 states that: “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”. Hmm… “general welfare”, now that’s an inconvenient truth. I personally do not like the idea of a mandate on Americans to purchase health care, and even if that provision is declared unconstitutional, there is virtually no chance that the broad reform will be affected. To go back to a time where the commerce clause cannot be used to ensure rights, like those granted to African Americans only 45 years ago,would be a disastrous step back for our country. We are dealing with precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court here, Glenn, so be careful what you wish for.
