Rhode Island Senator compares healthcare mandates to the draft

  It is getting laughable listening to politicians try to justify where in the constitution the provision is that allows the government to mandate healthcare insurance. Or I should say, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so damned important.

  The latest attempt comes from Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, who when asked about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates compared it to the draft.

Let me see,” said Reed. “I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution].  It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it’s been recognized, the authority to do that.

  First he admits that he has no clue what section in the constitution might legitimize healthcare mandates, he would have done well to stop there and admit defeat, but then he tries to cover his tracks by saying that the constitution does not give the government the authority to institute a draft. I would argue that when the constitution gives the government the right to raise an army it also gives them the right to institute a draft to raise that army if necessary. But that is not the argument here, so for the sake of this discussion I will grant Reed the point.

  He claims that because the draft was “necessary for the functioning of the government” that it has become recognized that the government has the authority to institute the draft even though it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. I would ask him– based on his own argument– how can you justify healthcare mandates as being necessary for the functioning of the government? That is the comparison that he has drawn and it just doesn’t hold water. Would he have us believe that if their were no healthcare mandates that the government would cease to exist? That seems to be the parallel that he has drawn.