Editorial: A day worthy of celebrating: Constitution Day

This Sunday, Sept. 17, marks the anniversary of one of the most propitious days in the history of this country. On that day in 1787, the representatives at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed the Constitution. It was ratified by the states and went into effect on March 4, 1789.

You remember the Constitution don’t you?

That’s the document that says the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …” Not waive, delay or ignore parts of laws the president doesn’t like, such as immigration laws, which the Constitution says: “The Congress shall have Power To … establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …”

The Constitution also says, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives …”

But when it came to ObamaCare, which is replete with a panoply of revenue generating taxes to offset its expenses, the Senate grabbed an unrelated bill that had passed the House, cut the existing language and substituted the ObamaCare verbiage. The bill number was the only thing that originated in the House.

Yes, it’s those four-handwritten pages that give Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States …” Not to force people to engage in commerce by buying health insurance or pay a fine or a tax for not doing so.

That Commerce Clause also has been stretched to prohibit a farmer from growing grain to feed his own cattle because that affected demand for grain on the interstate market. The same rationale allows Congress to set minimum wages for jobs that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

It also gave Congress the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Some wars get declared, while others are just military exercises.

The instrument also says the “President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Not decide for himself when the Senate is in session. At least the judiciary slapped Obama’s wrist on that one.

During ratification the Founders added the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment that says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” That probably means Congress can’t order a religion to pay for contraceptions, abortifacients and sterilization against its beliefs.

We’re pretty sure the document did not envision a president’s administration creating by regulation laws the Congress refused to pass — think immigration enforcement and rules promulgated by the EPA, FEC, HHS, HUD or USDA without the consent of Congress.

Another clause gives Congress the power “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 …” though the foregoing powers and powers vested by the Constitution part is largely ignored.

The Constitution also gave Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever … 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 just when did Congress purchase and the state Legislature consent to turning over 85 percent of Nevada’s land mass to the federal government?

As James Madison said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations …”

Happy Constitution Day, while it lasts.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

10 comments on “Editorial: A day worthy of celebrating: Constitution Day

  1. Rincon says:

    The Supreme Court’s logic on the Obamacare penalty is reasonable – unless you also think a tax on alcohol or tobacco is also unconstitutional.

    “Under this approach, the court ruled that the penalty the law imposes on people who don’t buy health insurance “looks like a tax in many respects,” and that it is permissible under the court’s previous case law for several reasons: the amount of money due is “far less than the price of insurance” and it is collected by the IRS under normal means of taxation.

    The court acknowledged that the mandate “is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage,” and noted that “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new”—for example, the taxing of cigarettes to discourage smoking.

    Finally, the court reasoned, the mandate does not make the failure to buy health insurance unlawful. Beyond the payment to the IRS, the court explains, “neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/explaining-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare

    Now for the real question: Where in the Constitution does it make it permissible for the government to force medical providers to provide care for those who are unable to pay? That’s how it was done before Obamacare. Young, healthy people routinely cheated the rest of us by not insuring themselves, knowing that by law, they were already insured for free. Talk about socialism!

  2. Steve says:

    “Where in the Constitution does it make it permissible for the government to force medical providers to provide care for those who are unable to pay?”

    Federal government doesn’t do this (even under ACA) indigent health care law is state by state and county by county.
    Constitutionally speaking the federal government does not have the power to require private providers or even the states to provide medical services to those who cannot pay.

    Moreover, the hippocratic oath, places the onus of caring for those unable to pay directly on the medical providers. Interestingly, not on the hospitals, just on the doctors and nurses.

    But you just keep on living in the “bliss” you so love.

  3. Rincon says:

    I try to avoid replying to your blather these days, but no one should be allowed to post falsehoods without challenge. It’s federal law, just as I said:

    “Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay.” https://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm

    As is so often the case, the pot is calling the kettle black.

  4. Steve says:

    As usual, you cherry pick your lies.

    That law is to ensure any hospital accepting Medicare will stabilize anyone entering an emergency room before transferring them to another (usually public) hospital. Since most hospitals accept Medicare most must follow this requirement. Others are eliminating emergency rooms and some are dropping Medicare.
    https://www.acep.org/news-media-top-banner/emtala/

    Your “bliss” (willful ignorance) is on full display.

  5. Steve says:

    On this day we celebrate by suing FOIA requesters! Hurrah!
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article172949091.html

  6. Steve says:

    When Rincon said :

    “When you post a link, I will be the one to choose whether I will or will not read it. I will not waste my time with a flurry of links that have your message buried somewhere inside without any guidance as to what I’m even looking for.”

    It became clear the intent is not to discuss, but to negate anything others say through selective picking apart of anything they say.
    Then Rincon has the gonads to claim it isn’t Rincon’s problem!

  7. Rincon says:

    Your words: “Federal government doesn’t do this (even under ACA) indigent health care law is state by state and county by county.”

    My quote: “The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay.”

    But you say I’m lying. Only a fool would think so. Do you think so?

  8. Steve says:

    Doubling down on the cherry picking.

    Your question was
    “Where in the Constitution does it make it permissible for the government to force medical providers to provide care for those who are unable to pay?”

    I made it abundantly clear hospitals need to agree to stipulations in accepting Medicare patients, EMTLA is one of those.

    Nothing is FORCED here you blind blissful person, you.

  9. Rincon says:

    As I said, I have no intention of engaging in any long, inevitably fruitless conversations with you. Have a good day.

  10. Steve says:

    Awe, I just can’t feel a tiny bit of sorrow for someone who refused to acknowledge thier own errors.

    You asked, I answered. You just don’t like being wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s