Posted by
VBushmills on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:01:58 AM
Richmond, October 28, 2009
...is that it is an issue you have to raise first, not last. And by raising it, you have to demur on everything else as being constitutionally moot.
Most legal scholars agree that this, or any federal intervention into the private sector health services is outside the scope of the Constitution, including the vaunted "welfare clause". In fact, most legislation this past year would fall into that category, especially the federal take-over of the banks and car industry. (E.g., when Paulson "forced" TARP on some reluctant banks/financial houses last year, the CEO's had no authority to contract away the companies' sovereignty. Only the Boards of Directors could do that. The whole sheebang was a constitutional, and legal fraud.)
Of course, pragmatists know that nothing is illegal until a judge brings a gavel down and says it's so, and in these cases, that final gavel rests with the Supreme Court, a process which (surprising to me at least) hasn't even begun yet...in any sector of business.
But this does not alter the political notion that if you believe an act to be unconstitutional, that should be first thing out of your mouth. You can then debate details in that context instead of appearing, as it does now, that you are a co-conspirator in evading the broader constitutional issue. How the Republican Party allowed themselves to be boxed in this way, I have no idea. For Godsakes, they're almost all lawyers, and probably even a couple of them are good at it.
Politically I can't understand being a nay-sayer to a bill you really don't like, or want, but fighting it up with a pea-shooter instead of an easy-to-reach .357 magnum.
But by doing so, we out here, also politically, have to assume the GOP agrees with the fundamental premise...
...that the Constitution is a goddamned impediment, and should be circumvented whenever possible.
It pays to know yer enemies.
VB