The Constitution .... Why Don't Our Lawmakers Respect It?

One common aspect of the Democratic Health Care bills currently under review in Congress is the requirement for mandatory purchase of health policies.

In 1994, when the Clinton health care reform plan was being formulated and contained a similar requirement,  the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

This begs that one understand the specific Constitutional authority being utilized to take this unprecedented step (before taking the step).  This responsibility rests solely with Congress.  Where has this discussion been during the health care debate?  It has been virtually nonexistent reflecting the mainstream media's lapdog treatment of the administration and the Democratic leadership on such weighty matters.   

Consider then these recent three exchanges on the Constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy Health Insurance:

1)CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill – Pelosi rudely dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

A later written statement from the Speaker's office claims such a right is within the Constitution's elephantine-sized “Regulate Commerce” clause. 
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0107

2)“Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”  The senator then turned away to answer another reporter’s question.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57007

3)When asked where specifically the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance, Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.) said that he “would have to check the specific sections” but said that it was like making people “sign up for the draft.”
http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1584444&spid=32345

What do we have?  We have a House Speaker (Pelosi) who is so arrogant or so unsure about her legal responsibilities or her grasp of the subject matter that she refuses to answer what is the most critical question concerning the Government takeover of Health Care.   Have you ever heard Speaker Pelosi make a rational mature argument weighing the merits of any issue?

We have another Senator (Nelson) with a law degree who, despite being in the Senate for 8 years and presumably voting on legislation that entire time,  does not seem to know what makes a bill Constitutional.  Wonder why such a man believes himself to be qualified to be a US Senator (since he says he is not a Constitutional scholar but apparently believes that is required to determine the Constitutionality of bills).

We have a third Senator (Reed) also with a law degree (this time from from Harvard) and 6 years in the US House followed by 12+ Years in the US Senate who says mandatory health insurance is “like” signing up for the draft. 

Why is the specific Constitutional Authority for mandatory health care insurance purchases getting such a cursory treatment from elected US Senators and the Speaker of the House?  It is outrageous that these officials, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution, hold it and the American public in such low regard that they barely consider the question when asked and give shallow and non specific answers with no basis or documentation.

The fact is the Democratic leadership is so enamored with increasing the size and power of government they are uninterested in any discussion of the Constitutionality of their actions.  Therein lies the source of their Achilles heel.  If forced to discuss the Constitutionality of their many schemes, their answer on most any item will invariably boil down to either something about 'promoting the General Welfare' or (as Ms Pelosi's staff generated on her behalf) some reference to 'regulating Commerce'.

The 'General Welfare' reference is found in the beginning of the section of the Constitution which lists the powers enumerated (listed) to Congress.  This phrase was never intended by the Founders to stand alone and be an umbrella under which any group of legislators could pass whatever they wished.

First, James Madison:

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. (James Madison, via Quoty)
and
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)

then Thomas Jefferson:
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. (Thomas Jefferson, via Quoty)

Despite an arguably overreaching Supreme Court decision that in 1942 held that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was somehow able to affect not only commerce but Interstate commerce,  there is still a difference, Ms Pelosi,  in regulating how commerce is conducted and FORCING all citizens to engage in a particular sort of commerce. Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia

The 'draft' reference grasped at by Senator Reed refers to an implementation detail for the Constitutional requirement that Congress raise and support an army and a navy for the defense of the country. 

The “I'm not a Constitutional scholar so I don't know” defense used by Senator Nelson is arguably the worst because it implies that Congress is somehow NOT accountable to attempt to pass Constitutional measures when their oath clearly indicates otherwise.  It's worse than a truck driver saying, “I'm not an automobile engineer so I don't have to obey the speed limit”.    

When sitting US Senators and the Speaker of the House who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution cannot adequately state and assert the Constitutionality of an unprecedented measure that impacts every American and 1/6 of the US economy,  such a measure is clearly not appropriate for consideration or approval.    Such unprepared representatives should not be serving as they are unable to fulfill their elected capacities and their empty oath is a disgrace to the citizenry.

Imagine what answers we might get if we asked this 'Constitutional Authority' question of all legislators on all matters before them.  Contact your Congressional Representatives and insist they enact the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 450), to force federal lawmakers to identify and cite the constitutional authority for any legislation they introduce.   Their oath already requires honorable persons to do just that.