Chicago PM 20 May 2010
Editors, The New York Times
The New York Times Editorial “Health Care Reform and the Courts” says 20 state attorneys general and governors have filed a lawsuit contending that “Congress has no constitutional power to compel people to make purchases from a private company....” but that the Justice Department “argued that Congress can impose and enforce the mandate under its powers... to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare.”
Is there not a single member of the Times' editorial board, a fact checker, a proof reader, aware of James Madison's explanation in his Federalist number 41 of what the founders meant by “general welfare”?:
“Some... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution... that the power 'to provide for the general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the general welfare.... But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?
What follows are the 17 clauses specifically defining what the Congress can do, from “borrow Money on the credit of the United States” thru “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.”
But not a hint of health care, nor old age pensions, either.
Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional, and so is Medicare, and Social Security. So after the Constitution is blatantly ignored three time in 70 years (all by the same political party) how many more hits can it take before it has no more meaning than a Soviet Russia 'constitution'?
Arnold H Nelson