House Democrats’ Healthcare Reform Plans Are Unconstitutional

March 16, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (46)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies, in an effort to be clever, have overstepped their constitutional bounds. The plan they have put forward for getting Senate-passed healthcare legislation through the House is, according to one prominent constitutional scholar, “unconstitutional.” Writing in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell, the former federal appellate judge who is now director of the prestigious Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, explains that the path Pelosi and company have staked out to move the bill to the finish line doesn’t pass the smell test.

To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

The House and Senate can, to be sure, establish their own rules of procedure and, after all, have the final word as to many of the critical activities that occur within them--such as who may or may not be seated. But, as McConnell writes, they “cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.”

In their rush to pass healthcare, to get it done on deadline after almost 18 months of partisan politicking and pork barrel, the Democrats have now decided to shred the Constitution.

This was not the kind of change America voted for.

 

Check out our political cartoons.

Check out our editorial cartoons on healthcare.

Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Nancy Pelosi,
healthcare,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (46)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

R.L Schaefer of CA wrote: "David, instead of railing about "wasting" money keeping humans alive why don't you protest the billions of dollars spent trying to save dolphins and whales, Condor chicks, tigers, eagle and tortoise eggs, salmon, snowy plovers, Delta Smelt, on and on... All this while people suffer and die. Absolute madness...."

You and I are on the same page about the billions of dollars spent trying to save dolphins, whales, etc. I agree, and was trying to keep the issue in context of expenditure with regard to health care.

But, I'm at a loss, to try and understand your philosophy. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I agree it would be ideal to have health care so that anyone and everyone can have access while, at the same time, making it "free" to the extent it lessens the impact on others.

But the sad reality is that will never happen. People get sick, people suffer, and people die. That is reality. There is no way to spin it otherwise. Some of it, indeed most of it, is self-inflicted. So, when it's self-inflicted I lose my compassion.

You wrote: "Your statement is callous and demeaning. Their occupation, nationality, immigration status, or income have absolutely nothing to do with their rights as human beings. If they are sick they need treatment - not left to die in the "strawberry fields". This notion of caring is not about "playing God", but rather about being human and trying to do the "right thing" by those who are suffering, regardless of their legal status or income."

Understand, I'm not writing to win a popularity contest. I'm calling a spade a spade. I don't know of many bankers, lawyers, doctors who illegally immigrate to the United States. So the stereotype is fitting . . . don't try and spin it as something else.

Explain to me why you think injustice should be used to meet injustice? While your at it, explain why, in your book it's ok for the mercy to rob justice?

The pathos arguements are emotionally appealing, but they're logically weak and unrealistic.

Also, the compassion I sense from you is virtuous and noble, and I believe legitimate.

Compelling compassion through force and legislation takes the benefit of virtue and nobility out of compassion.

david of ID 2:37PM March 22, 2010

R.L. Schaefer of CA is right, our cheap labor that puts most the food on our tables is not disposable and deserves health care. Yes it is, health care is a human right. What's the use of health care for any of us if you're willing to allow smallpox, bubonic plague and maybe some other airbourne epidemics in the barrios just across the tracks from your gated suburbs, david of ID. Last I recall we stole, swindled and conquered the profitable half of the US from our Hispanic neighbors to the south. I'm for opening up the borders like it used to be, let migrant labor come and go from US to work and go home when they're done. Hell, Mexicans will gladly go back home for free their health care in their country, and who wouldn't rather winter in Mexico anyway.

If nothing else, david of ID, health care of labor doing all the work secures our food supply.

Thomas of MT 2:59PM March 20, 2010

David you wrote, "We have people wanting better health, to live longer, take away the pain of consequence (costs/effort/sacrifice). Why? So they can live three more years longer and cost the taxpayer a million dollars? We spend dollars to save dimes. Let's see, after 40 years of life their accumulated earnings are $200,000, but we'll spend 10 times that to keep an illegal alien breathing for a few more years; those strawberries need picking."

I do not approve of the situation on our southern border. I have written extensively on the need to absolutely secure the border and deport those illegals who have been here under 5 years. Fine those who have been here longer - and make them legal "Residents" - but do not give them an automatic path to citizenship. However, they are human beings - even if here illegally.

Your statement is callous and demeaning. Their occupation, nationality, immigration status, or income have absolutely nothing to do with their rights as human beings. If they are sick they need treatment - not left to die in the "strawberry fields". This notion of caring is not about "playing God", but rather about being human and trying to do the "right thing" by those who are suffering, regardless of their legal status or income.

David, instead of railing about "wasting" money keeping humans alive why don't you protest the billions of dollars spent trying to save dolphins and whales, Condor chicks, tigers, eagle and tortoise eggs, salmon, snowy plovers, Delta Smelt, on and on... All this while people suffer and die. Absolute madness....

R.L. Schaefer of CA 1:17PM March 17, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement