Well, a lot of people are talking about Congressman Pete Stark’s (D-Arkham Asylum) answer when challenged about the constitutionality of ObamaCare — his answer is that the federal government essentially has no restraints, and can do whatever the hell it wants.
Plenty of others have dissected Stark’s admission of tyranny, so I’m going to look at the actual points the questioner raised — and that Ed Morrissey expanded upon.
If “health care” is a right, then those two worthies are absolutely correct — it trumps several parts of the Constitution.
“Health care” is a commodity — a good or service. As such, it requires a provider. A provider that lacks the right to refuse service, and is therefore a slave under the 13th Amendment. And, as Ed notes, it also violates the 5th Amendment ban on the confiscation of private property, as well as Article I, Section 8.
But let’s get past that. Let’s presume, for the sake of argument, that the liberals’ argument is valid — that a “right” that one cannot afford to exercise is no right whatsoever, and the government should intervene to guarantee “fair access” to those Constitutional rights, regardless of social, economic, or other circumstances. We’ve already heard it, when the subject of abortion comes up.
And let’s run with that — right through the whole Bill of Rights.
Oops, a slight problem — the Bill of Rights has two modes: “the people can” and “the federal government can’t.” So, in the interest of completion, I’ll be letting Congressman Stark address the latter rights.
]]>< 

