Skip to content

Ben Nelson on healthcare mandates: Congress gets the constitutional authority in the “same place” that gives states the right to mandate car insurance

December 26, 2009

  Senator Ben Nelson– Democrat from Nebraska, and the man whose vote for healthcare reform was secured after his state received a nice little kickback— was asked: “where in the Constitution do you think that Congress gets the authority to create an individual mandate?” Just like everyone else who was asked this question, he struggled to come with an acceptable answer.

  He responded, “probably the same place that states have the authority to require, mandate if you will, compulsory auto insu–liability insurance.”  This could be one of the most constitutionally ignorant answers yet, although it is hard to top Senator Burris, who made up the “general health” clause to defend the constitutionality of the issue at hand.

   Senator Nelson apparently does not know the difference between state and federal laws, he  should probably look it up because that “place” he vaguely mentions does not exist in the constitution.

   Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution– where the infamous “general welfare” clause resides– lays out the specific enumerated powers of congress, they are as follows:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

  I didn’t see anything in that list that said congress or the president could force the American people to buy any goods or services. That means the constitutional authority does not exist and the 10th amendment states the following:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  So you see Senator Nelson, if a power is not granted to the federal government than the power belongs to the states. That is the case with the flawed argument that you and others have made about automobile insurance. While states can mandate automobile insurance, the federal government cannot. And while the individual states can mandate healthcare coverage– as does the people’s Republic of Massachusetts– the federal government cannot.

  This should be a simple concept for our elected officials to understand, but sadly they either do not understand, or they do not care, what their authority is and who gives it to them– WE THE PEOPLE! 

  We have reached a point in this country where not only do our elected officials not care about what the constitution says they can and cannot do, many of them don’t even understand the document that they are supposed to uphold.

  Senator Nelson is not alone in his ignorance, for he is not the first to confuse state laws with federal laws; Mark Warner of Virginia claimed that mandating healthcare insurance was the same as states requiring people to have driver’s licenses. Others have also used the car insurance argument to make their case, including the president.

   The people who are supposed to protect and defend the constitution are destroying and perverting it. It is time to take our country back.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

9 Comments leave one →
  1. Deb's avatar
    Deb permalink
    December 26, 2009 10:13 am

    “Probably”??!!!??? I think it is here, or there, or wherever. And my personal fave, “Are you serious?” Why exactly is it that the Congress of the United States is allowed to get away with answering questions about the Constitution in this manner? Some things just simply cannot be made up as you go along. Should not America be one of those things? Hey, ya know, whatever’s the most convenient for you, Nan & Harry. Don’t worry about us…. THey remind me of atheists. Just refuse to believe in God b/c it is inconvenient for them. Well, to both groups I ask, do you really want to take your chances? Really?

    Like

  2. Matt's avatar
    December 26, 2009 3:56 pm

    There are states already preparing to assert their 10th Amendment rights. They will be nullifying this law in their states. It’ll be an interesting Constitutional standoff.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 26, 2009 9:59 pm

      My state, New Hampshire, had a bill introduced that would have asserted out 10th amendment rights but it was voted down. Perhaps after November we will be able to try again.

      Like

  3. Dirty Atheist's avatar
    Dirty Atheist permalink
    December 26, 2009 4:03 pm

    Dear Mr. Pink Eyes,
    Dirty Atheist here. I’m no Con Law scholar, but I think your answer lies in the second sentence of your long block quote from the Constitution: “To regulate Commerce…among the several States…” This little bit of the law of the land is also known as the interstate commerce clause. It has been used since 1824 to nefariously foist several “burdens” on the backs of the American people, including but not limited to civil rights and sex offender registration. Under your interpretation of the Constitution we would have neither of those things. You might notice that there is no mention of the United States Air Force in the Constitution either. But lo and behold, we have one! “How could this be?” you ask. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution also gives Congress the power “…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Would you really rather have a US armed forces minus the air force?

    If this is the focus of your nifty little blog you should probably read a book or two to bone up on the Constitution and what it actually says. Or, at the very least, read a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal or a scholarly article explaining exactly what your post is about: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/projects/reform/Papers/Individual_Mandates.pdf
    I swear it will only take a few minutes and will vastly improve your understanding of the way that our nation is governed.

    Best wishes,
    Dirty Atheist

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 26, 2009 9:43 pm

      Thanks for stopping by DA, I know what the commerce clause is and I addressed how it pertains to this issue here.
      You talk about the “nefarious” issues such as civil rights and sex offenders but you should research some of the ways that this clause has been abused. It is probably the most abused clause in the constitution.

      Like

  4. Ron Russell's avatar
    December 26, 2009 5:57 pm

    You are right Congress does not have this power under the Constitution, but the central government does have on thing to enforce its laws that the states do not—the military! And they have shown little reluctance over the years to use it. Nullification was advanced many years ago by the famed southern stateman, John C. Calhoun and the issue was eventually settled, not by law but by force of arms.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 26, 2009 10:03 pm

      If memory serves me correctly that would have been the Nullification Act introduced in South Carolina, am I correct?

      Like

  5. Kent Pitman's avatar
    December 26, 2009 7:50 pm

    It has always been explained to me that in the case of driving, it’s a privilege that we only allow at all in exchange for certain safety assurances. It is not everyone’s right to drive. Requiring coverage is necessary because driving might forseeably lead to accidents that injure not just the motorist but others, and so one needs to make sure they are able to take on the responsibility. Medical insurance is not like this because it is not contingent on a privilege. It is more aptly modeled as a tax, the precise value of which is being outsourced to an agency not within control of the voters. This seems to me a violation of due process. Note, by the way, that universal health insurance would not be of similar kind. If the government were the insurance agency, its actions would remain within control of the voters (indirectly through the Congress) and so that would seem legal, as are the other expenditures of the US government like Medicare and Social Security and funding of wars and so on.

    Like

  6. TexasFred's avatar
    December 26, 2009 8:16 pm

    Ben Nelson is even more stupid than he looks…

    Like

Leave a reply to Ron Russell Cancel reply