The closer that this gets to a showdown, the more doubtful appears the outcome. But one thing that is getting more attention of late is the strong probability of serious constitutional challenges to this albatross. · Sen. Nelson’s (D Nebraska) payback for his vote that exempts Nebraska, and only Nebraska form having to share the increased state Medicare costs under Obamacare.
Check out Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution: “provide for the general welfare . . . but that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”. And add this to the many other vote buying earmarks in the law. The Louisiana Purchase comes to mind here. By the way, it would seem that Sen. Nelson is realizing this. Sen. Nelson is reported asking that the Nebraska exemption be extended to all states. Well, forget about any debit neutral requirements imposed by the president.
Mandating health insurance coverage is on questionable grounds also. Two Supreme Court decisions raise red flags. The Court said, in striking down two laws that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. Even trying to stretch the 10th amendment interstate commerce clause fails here. This is not a regulation to control interstate commerce, but a mandate to purchase. As one columnist wrote, would it be legal to mandate that everyone eat broccoli because it is good for you? And comparing this to requiring (at the state level) of purchasing auto liability insurance is a different matter. First, these are at state level. Second, driving an auto is a choice, not a requirement. · Requiring the elimination of preexisting conditions in health insurance.
There is a slippery slope here. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in his column, if this was a general requirement, we could equate this to fire insurance. Why but insurance at all. Simply wait until your house burns down and then purchase the insurance. Coverage cannot be denied simply because the burned down house is a preexisting condition. And the same logic would apply to auto insurance. But the escape valve on this is that the insurance companies would be able to adjust their rates to actuary accounting. Otherwise, why would so many insurance companies be on board for this? Now this is not to say that badly needed reforms are not needed on this issue.
But this shotgun approach is not the way to do it. I am afraid that I might be struck down by a lightning bolt for what I am about to say, but Howard Dean was right. I agree with him. Obamacare is such a mess that it would be better to scrap the whole thing and do it better. Now, let’s take a peek at Cap and Tax. One of the things in this program is the enforcement and administration of the cap and trade provisions that would, in effect, regulate anything that would produce carbon dioxide, worldwide. This program would be under the auspices of UN administration. In effect, the UN would be empowered to collect fees and enforce with fines, directly in the United States in this massive wealth shift between nations. And the trials would be held in the UN court system, not in the US. If this isn’t a massive sovereignty shift, I don’t know what is. Can this survive the surely constitutional challenges that surly will arise? I would hope not. And, for that matter, the system is hopelessly corrupt as it stands. Some countries, notably Russia, the Ukraine and China are now making scads of money by selling credits on the international market from facilities that were shut down many years ago for purely economic reasons that were big carbon emitters. Like the massive glass producing industry in the Ukraine that was shut down twenty years ago. What is glaringly apparent is that the lawmakers in the US Congress, who are paid to make laws, seem to know little about what laws are legal or not.
Richard N. Baldwin T., a HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com
contributing columnist, lives in Tlalnepantla, Edo de México.
E-mail at: [email protected]