Nancy Pelosi refuses to comment on where the constitutional authority is to mandate healthcare insurance

  With the exception of Steny Hoyer’s asinine assertion that the “general welfare” clause of the constitution grants the power to congress to mandate healthcare insurance, (an assertion that I debunked here), other politicians, such as Patrick Leahy, have shown their constitutional ignorance in another way– by refusing to even make up something the way Steny Hoyer did and by refusing to answer the question at all. Patrick Leahy’s answer to the question? We have the authority, nobody doubts that. But still he can’t show us where the constitution grants us that authority. Now we can add Nancy Pelosi to the mix of politicians who can not tell us where the constitution grants congress the authority to mandate healthcare insurance.

  When asked the question about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates this is what Nancy Pelosi had to say:

Are you serious? Are you serious

   She then shook her head in disbelief that someone would dare to question her authority and took a question from another reporter without ever answering a question that should be a no-brainer to anyone in congress if the congress did in fact have constitutional authority to mandate healthcare insurance.

  Later in the day, in an effort to find the authority that simply does not exist, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman claimed that the “interstate commerce” clause granted the congress the authority to mandate healthcare coverage. This seems to be at odds with Steny Hoyer, who claimed that it was the “general welfare” clause from which congress derived the power to mandate healthcare coverage.

  Having already debunked Steny Hoyer’s claim in a previous post it is now time to delve into the commerce clause and Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the commerce clause grants congress the right to regulate healthcare mandates.

   The original intent of the commerce clause was to eliminate trade barriers and tariffs that were imposed between the states, which were much more sovereign entities than they are today, and to create a national currency. Under the Articles of Confederation individual states could negotiate treaties with foreign nations and with other states setting up inequities between differing states with each other as well as between different states and foreign nations. The commerce clause was designed to take treaty making privileges away from the states in order to ensure uniform treaties across the nation. That is the original intent of the commerce clause, pure and simple.

  But don’t take my word for it, let us go to the people who actually wrote and defended the constitution and look at the arguments that they made about the “commerce clause.

  Alexander Hamilton:

It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States.No nation acquainted with the nature of our political association would be unwise enough to enter into stipulations with the United States, by which they conceded privileges of any importance to them, while they were apprised that the engagements on the part of the Union might at any moment be violated by its members, and while they found from experience that they might enjoy every advantage they desired in our markets, without granting us any return but such as their momentary convenience might suggest

  It is obvious that he is talking about the states forming their own treaties with foreign nations.

  Madison:

A very material object of this power [to regulate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former

  He was writing about tariffs and taxes that were implemented between the differing states. I can go on and on, there is much more, but suffice it to say that the commerce clause was designed to regulate trade between the sovereign states between each other and with foreign nations. Just read the Federalist Papers that pertain to the commerce clause if you don’t believe me.

  But over the years the commerce clause has been probably the most abused clause in the constitution. The case of Wickard vs. Filburn is a perfect example. Filburn was growing wheat for his own consumption, he was not selling it. The Supreme Court ruled that because he was growing wheat and using it for his own private use that it violated the commerce clause, even though there was no commerce involved, because if he didn’t use his own wheat he would have to purchase it elsewhere.

  This is just one example, there are many, many more. And now we have Nancy Pelosi claiming that the commerce clause gives her the authority to mandate that people buy healthcare insurance? On what grounds? How do healthcare mandates fall under the commerce between states or the commerce between nations? Nancy Pelosi, as well as other liberals in congress, would do well to actually read the constitution.