Every Senator took an oath to defend the Constitution. The current health care proposal to transfer the regulation of health care from the states to the Federal government is in direct opposition to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The Founders of the United States believed strongly that those programs that most directly affected people should be handled by administrative authority close to the people.
This law establishing the Federal government as the primary authority over all health care creates the dynamic where only political organizations with enough clout to influence the power brokers in Washington DC will have their health concerns address.
This legislation is antithetical to the very foundations of the American Experiment.
In upcoming weeks, the Senate will have a procedural vote on the Health Care proposal.
Many argue that Senators should wait until after the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills to voice their opposition.
I contend, however, that the bill is such an egregious violation of both the Constitution and common sense that Senators should stop the bill in procedure, for there is no way for the legislation to continue without violating the virtue of distributed rule given to us in the US Constitution.
Proceeding is a direct violation of the oath of office swore by the leaders of this nation.
3 comments:
There is not even a single U.S. senator that has authentic concern for the Constitution as anything other than a debating tool. Why is true constitutional concern so rare in the Senate? There is not even a single state that would elect such an individual to that body nowadays.
The cynical me notes that politicians only quote from the Constitution when its in their favor.
I wrote the post because the upcoming procedural vote offers the best chance to stop this health care power grab fiasco.
So, I asked myself the question: What would I say to a Senator who is opposed to the bill but is scared about the politics of dropping the bill in a procedural vote.
The way to justify voting against the bill in procedure is to say that states currently regulate health care.
There has been no justification made as to why the Feds must take this power away from the states.
The whole debate appears to be outside the framework for the Constitution.
As the constitutionality of the debate is question, the debate itself should be stopped in procedure.
I actually sent this post to Senators.
Putting it another way: In good parliamentary order legislators should discuss the Constitutionality of a bill before it ever goes to vote.
In a well run legislature, Unconstitutional bills should never go before the body for a vote.
The 10th Amendment reads "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."
That last bit about "reserved to the states...OR to the people" (emphasis mine)means the people can exercise their power through their representatives and grant the government power to act on their behalf on issues provided it is not explicitly prohibited from acting by another section of the Constitution. What other section prohibits regulation of health care?
Post a Comment