Debate Planners Can't Find Anyone to Argue Health Reform Is Unconstitutional

[cal04]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/debate_planners_cant_find_anyone_to_argue_that_hea.php

The University of Washington tried to organize a debate on whether the health-care reform bill is constitutional. But it couldn't find a law professor to argue that it isn't, reports the Seattle Times. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011483297_healthdebate31m.html)

"I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional," said the moderator. "But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand."

Washington's attorney general, Rob McKenna, has joined 12 other state AGs on the lawsuit, filed last week, that argues the bill is unconstitutional. We took a look at the suit's slim chances of success here.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/could_scotus_be_the_death_panel_for_health-care_reform.php


College debate organizers unable to find any law professors to argue health reform is unconstitutional.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/college-debate-health/

[babylonsister]

1. Ha! Rec'd. nt

[Vincardog]

2. I will argue that the MANDATE to buy private insurance is is flat-out unconstitutional. What is next

are we going to be required to buy BOA's protection too?

[optimator]

3. nothing is unconstitutional

when all branches are completely corrupt.

[Gravel Democrat]

4. Conyers said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority for mandates

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63182
audio/video clip available at link

"During an interview Capitol Hill Friday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “The individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

Much much more including audio/video clip at link

Remember: This is the House Judiciary Committee Chairman

[Skinner]

5. Conyers = DLC Corporate Stooge.

(Kidding)

[Statistical]

6. FACE PALM.

No such thing as a "good and welfare" clause.

Makes about as bunch sense as saying the "Dented Tin Can" clause makes it Constitutional.

[Romulox]

10. He means the "promote the general Welfare" clause from the preamble.

My understanding is that the preamble has been held to provide no independent source of authority. If it did, anything the congress deemed to "promote the general welfare" would be permissible, which is directly at odds with both the Tenth Amendment (limited as it may be, it still must be taken as significant,) and the general structure of our government as one limited to its enumerated powers.

[Uncle Joe]

13. I disagree with Conyers, this is promoting a particular as opposed to general welfare.

"Health" insurance corporations, some for profit hospitals over others, Congress and the corporate media will greatly benefit from this HCR Law.

True "promoting of general welfare" would be a progressive tax supported universal coverage for every American from the cradle to the grave, short of that a strong non-profit national public option can get you there.

However I believe this just passed HCR law will create adverse dynamics that can only work against the "general welfare" and this dynamic will grow in strength with time as the population of the United States increases while in turn increasing the private for profit pool of available monies for bribing, lobbying, advertising, and commercials.

[Winterblues]

7. The Extreme Court will have a different opinion, you can bet on it.

It is probably the most Partisan Court in the entire history of the court..Right now Republican's entire goal is to stop Obama and the Court will stick to the script..They will have be very creative though..

[MrCoffee]

9. The Roberts Court is no where near the most partisan in the history of the court

Not by a long shot. Hell, the Burger Court was more partisan than this one is.

[Romulox]

8. Constitutionality can't be determined by a mathematical formula

It's Constitutional unless five Justices say it's not. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Which makes a "debate" somewhat pointless, especially since there is no "on all fours" precedent to cite.

[Brother Buzz]

11. Has anybody contacted John Yoo?

He's up to the task.

[Tippy]

12. It seems like a lot of Republicans are backing away from this issue

What will they say to constituents when they begin ask questions....Like why do you want insurance companies to drop me if I have a pre- existing condition....Sme law makers have already tried to distance themselves...Kirk in Il. running for Obamas seat, for instance...who vowed to get rid of this bill...and the other who comes to mind is Rubio in FL running for Gov...He has begun refusing to answer questions on the issue. Now it's time for us to remind everyone about what they said while they were still on the kill the bill band wagon...