A year ago, I was sitting down with my own congressman, John Boccieri, OH-16, and had the chance to ask him questions on the proposed health care bill pending in congress. I was concerned about the mandate that forces the uninsured to purchase health insurance. My reading of the bill and Constitution caused me to wonder if provisions in the bill were Constitutional. I asked him this question. “What is the constitutional grant of authority that permits congress to mandate individuals purchase health insurance.” His said, “the Supreme Court gave congress that right to mandate insurance purchases under the Commerce Clause.”
I believe in a free country people have the right to choose. This year I had to put my principles into action because I was laid off from my job. I had to face this question on a personal basis. I lost my company provided health insurance and had to choose to pay or not pay for health insurance. I had three choices: do not purchase insurance and take my chances, buy COBRA, or purchase insurance from my husband’s company. Had we been too financially strapped to pay extra for my own coverage, I might have chosen to take the risk of no coverage. I chose the least expensive option and now have coverage because could MAKE MY OWN CHOICE. The new health care individual mandate says that someone who has lost their job, has less money, is struggling to pay their mortgage, pay their utilities, and buy food for their families will be required to pay for health insurance. The individual mandate takes away one of my options.
This is like saying that government has the right to force you to purchase products it deems to be in your best interest. Individuals are not smart enough to make their own decisions, so the government will force them to make proper choices. The commerce clause of the constitution was once limited to mandating states allow commerce between the states and states were not permitted to apply tariffs on goods transported between states. The 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the commerce clause to mean government could regulate how much wheat you were allowed to grown on your own land for your own consumption. From that decision, we get mandated compact florescent light bulbs, government regulated flow restricted toilets and individually mandated national health care purchases. All these decisions belong in the crapper.
Elena Kagan agrees with John Boccieri’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause and her confirmation to the Supreme Court, and the belief that government has the power to force citizens to do what government officials think best. With Kagan we will loose more of our individual freedom. She will most defiantly be confirmed to the Supreme Court by the Democrats who have more than enough votes in the Senate to confirm her nomination. She will support the rights of government to usurp more power from individuals because of the misguided interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Elections do matter and we must remember why we must vote for good Constitutional conservatives to take over the Senate come November. We won’t be able to take back her nomination but we can prevent any more liberal tyrants to be confirmed.
Senator Tom Coburn agrees…
By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath
July 20, 2010 8:58 AM
By Sen. Tom Coburn
The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan provided key exchanges about the Commerce Clause, natural rights, and other issues that have convinced me to vote against her nomination. Based on her own testimony, she’ll violate her oath as soon as she’s sworn in.
The hearings, though, were not merely about Elena Kagan per se but about the political culture and philosophy that shaped her views. Her answers exposed profound flaws in the prevailing Big Government wisdom of the Supreme Court and Washington over the past few decades.
Read More from Senator Tom Coburn in: National Review Online
