Jim DeMint to Force a Vote on Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | December 22nd, 2009 at 01:44 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

The Senate Republicans failed to ever make a fuss about the individual mandate. If I had to guess, it would be because Bob Bennett of Utah, who whispers in Mitch McConnell’s ear more than any other Senator, is a huge proponent of the individual mandate and, as luck would have it, is about to get a Democratic health care bill that looks almost identical to his own Wyden-Bennett compromise plan. As an added bonus, he can vote against it and still see it pass.

Nonetheless, there are serious issues about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The federal constitution sets forth the limited powers of the federal government and not one of those powers seems to suggest that the Congress of the United States can compel the citizens of the nation to buy certain products.

Jim DeMint and John Ensign are going to force a vote on the issue. Democrats will be forced to take a position on whether or not the federal government can force individuals to buy products on pain of criminal penalty.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Excellent.

Tags: Health care, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Senate

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

JadedByPolitics

….
http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

Minority Leader. And yes.
http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

…is fighting. KBH should take a lesson.
snowcloud

Forgive me but I don’t see this as a good thing. We all know this will fail and the congress can now say, “…we voted on the Constitutionality of this and it is..” We will have no recourse now. Not good.
coriewhalen

…. Do you think they are still planning to read the entire bill? Coburn and DeMint have been talking about this – do you know where it stands?

Do they think it’s not worth it, because a vote to end it would happen automatically? I can SORT of entertain that logic, but I, like others, are sick of the GOP rolling over and letting this happen without a fight.
http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

…the bill is full of unconstitutional encroachments on states and individuals. It isn’t just the individual mandate.

The Constitution is a powerful defensive weapon, ignored for far too long, if only our team would use it.
redneck_hippie
http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

Because the GOP failed to do this before Reid started scheduling votes, they can do it as a meaningless PR stunt now. But when the appointed time comes for the votes, the votes will happen whether or not they’ve finished reading the bill.
Swamp_Yankee

This vote will largely be symbolic, I assume. It may be good to put them on record. But I really dont want them to take it out at this juncture. It will be much easier for Blue Dogs to vote for a bill without out.

Nothing will piss average people off more than the mandate. The other stuff will trickle down and affect the insurance and health care industries, but the average joes will just get used to it. But the mandate sticks up their craw. I

As long its there, the GOP has a potent weapon. It could be the weapon that enables them to obtain a mandate to undue much of the bill. Campaign against the mandate, win majorities, and then legisilate a complete overhaul once in power.

But taking it out now just bankrupts the insurance industry. They cannot afford to cover everyone with the new rules, i.e. pre-existing conditions, without the premiums from the mandates. And our best political tool will be gone.
davidstone

It is constitutional? Do we try the Supreme Court?
davidstone

then it is Majority Leader.
bigredone

I am not a scholar, but it appears to me that such a vote would mean DeMint and Ensign could immediately request Court review on the vote and move along faster to the Constitutionality question.

Wrong?

You won’t hurt my feelings…
Third Street

According to that logic we can’t fight to defund/overturn the bill after it passes, either. “Hey, these Constitution-trampling bribe-taking crooks voted to pass this legislation they didn’t read so it must be legitimate!”
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

Amendment XIII
Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If I am to be jailed unless I buy health insurance, I am, effectively, a slave of the state.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

Thank you.
ColdWarrior
Menlo

I will not praise or commend ANYONE who would dare say something like that. It is just one more example of what is wrong with these Republicans.

There are no “good intentions.” In all seriousness, all these Democrats are sadists; and their actions are motivated by pure evil and their desire to see the disappointment, death, and suffering of others. They aren’t even human as far as I’m concerned.
JadedByPolitics

………………….
http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

If the GOP builds a record on the floor of speeches questioning the constitutionality, it would show the courts that there is a serious split.
ramblinwreck

I hate to criticize when people appear to be doing the right thing but why have they waited till now to object to the Constitutionality of a bill? They’ve done things for years not permitted in the enumerated powers and I’m talking about both parties. Have the Republicans finally found some guts and gotten some newfound religion about obeying the intent of the Constitution? I hope so but I doubt it.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

their many precedents that were wrongly decided that they could cite to uphold the mandate. They may have to resort to the wrongful application of taxation for the general welfare clause.

But I am with you. We should be forcing this vote.
Scope

will institute Class Warfare.
djemi

That there is a report out there by the congresstional rearch dept that goes into the whole constitutionality of the HCR bill, and I’m getting a copy, I hope.
Has anyone else seen/heard of this report?
yoyo

The same applies to Congress. They can vote ANYTHING “Constitutional” but it doesnt make it so.

This thing flies in the face of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, possibly the Fifth, and the Thirteenth ( Involuntary Servitude – “… the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a “climate of fear” evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion….”)

How they could get away with it, through ANY court, is beyond me.
yoyo

I am glad that we are thinking along the same lines, though!
makemyday

if you used the Equal Protection part. The feds can’t (or shouldn’t) pass anything granting unequal status among the states. By coming up with the back room deals for Louisiana, Nebraska and the Prarie states all the other states are unequally burdened with the costs of this obamanation. Either they ALL share equally in the costs or the law can’t stand.
neoavatara

The report is somewhat gobbledygook. It basically says it could be constitutional if it met certain standards. I think the real thing is that we don’t know. Would SCOTUS argue that simply being a citizen of the United States requires you to have health insurance? And what about those with religious opposition, who don’t believe in the morality of insurance? I don’t know, I think the courts are going to have to decide this.
http://neoavatara.com/blog
makemyday
ericstenner

This should be really exciting, as DeMint does a great job of making the Dems look like fools – see the video of the “procedure vs rule” argument. But why bother now? They will yawn and vote “yes, this is constitutional,” and still make it home for Christmas.

If only McConnell had one percent of the fight in him that DeMint has.
Randy

NOW!
AceInTX

Better late than never and this should have been the number one issue for the whole party from day one!

GOD Bless you guys for finally bringing it out!
AceInTX

is they will overturn the payoffs but the legislation would stand….the individual mandate is the one that stands the best chance of stopping or overturning this I think…but I’m not confident because I thought McCain Fiengold would die a deserving death with the SCOTUS
coriewhalen

That’s what I thought, which is why I’m enraged. I don’t understand why DeMint would have waited. Do you have any insight into that? I really thought he was legitimate. It’s sort of pathetic, but I really feel betrayed. Ugh.
harlan

…of course the dems can make Americans buy a product or do any damn thing for that matter. It has been so decreed by Hizzonner, President Rahm Emm…er, Barack Hussein Obama.

And while they’re at it, they might as well go ahead and declare President Rahm Em…er, Barack Hussein Obama as President for Life.

And maybe axelrod would make a grand Archbishop of Washington, D.C.
eburke

‘messaging strategy’ but never bothered to bring up all day, every day, the #1 message from this whole debacle – the fact that this bill will *mandate* that Americans buy something whether they want to or not.

Talk about a winning message to the average American that you can fit into a 30 second soundibite. For the love of God!!

Ya know Ace, there is something that truly befuddles me. I understand that, unfortunately, most of these people are nothing more than whores who will do anything to maintain power and wouldn’t know a principle if they found it in their pants. But what absolutely defies my comprehension abilities is when they leave something like this on the table. I mean, screw whether or not it’s the right position constitutionally and intellectually. For heaven’s sake, from a sheer *power* standpoint, this is the kind of stuff to ‘run on’ that you couldn’t *buy* enough ad time for. Talk about an issue to maintain your power with!

And these guys, apparently, are too clueless and brain-dead to realize that even if they could give a rat’s ass about the Constitution, jumping on this issue would help them regain their coveted power. And they *still* don’t do it.

They’re not only spineless, they’re as dumb as a box of rocks.
http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

(See, it pays to make those calls.)

I called several Senators offices when I got off work today. Senator DeMint and Coburn’s answered.

I thanked Sen. DeMint’s staffer for calling a vote on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. I further asked (as I have been of all the Senators) if he would consider objecting to the appointment of the Senate-House conferees. To my delight, Sen. DeMint’s staffer said he is planning to do just that!

Of note, Sen. Coburn’s staffer said they have been getting a lot of requests to object to the conferees as well.

Thank you Dan for your recommendation:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/12/20/the-extraordinary-measures-needed-to-kill-the-bill/
writeblock

…It won’t change any minds in the Senate, but it lays out the issue clearly for the public. This is definitely the kind of issue the Supremes would need to weigh in on, dealing as it does with fundamental freedoms and given that the bill is so opposed by the majority of citizens. Government overreach is why we need the SC to begin with.
writeblock

Not that he isn’t intelligent, but he’s ineffectual. His comment about health care’s being Obama’s Waterloo served to unite the opposition. The Dems hate conservatism more than they love their country.

Two other thoughts:

1. It’s liberating to know where we stand. This bill could well be the tipping point for action by conservatives–in what has been a decades-long cold civil war. Now we MUST act. Words are not enough. White hot anger must be converted into resistance–and will be.

2. Anyone who wants to lead us must be prepared to fight hard. We need to avoid gentleman-types like Romney and Pawlenty or preachers like Huckabee. We need a streetfighter to lead next time around, somebody who calls things by name and is not afraid to use the word “socialism” . I’m sick of the good manners of most GOP pols. If they can’t express outrage over this bill–when will they?
eburke

I’d bet anything that they agreed to follow McConnell’s ‘messaging’ strategy as members of the caucus and good team players with the hope that it might actually work.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in the last week or so Coburn forced the reading of the Sander’s amendment and DeMint has now, on successive days, unearthed Sec 3403, forced a vote on the constitutionality of the bill, and is now, apparently, going to object to the appointment of the conferees.

How much ya want bet that after Nelson caved subsequent to McConnell’s ‘brilliant’ strategy, that Coburn and DeMint told him to go screw himself; they’re going to go ahead and do what they damn well please.
writeblock

…that the bill took this shape. It might have been premature to have discussed the constitutionality of the individual mandate earlier–when it might have been eliminated or devised differently. Now that it’s written-in, the GOP are standing on pretty firm legal ground challenging this in the SC.
eburke

who found the section of the bill which places ‘death panels’ in the bill in perpetuity….

who put the Dems on record as stating that words and rules mean nothing except what they say they mean…

the guy who’s going to force a vote on the Constitutionality of the bill….

and, last but not least, the guy who’s planning to object to the appointment of the conferees so that this steaming pile of manure will have to be debated on the House floor instead of behind closed doors…

is ineffectual.

RIght!
louisiana

They must be assured in large numbers that we appreciate them & will support them.
AceInTX

Mitt Romney and Mass Care…
JadedByPolitics

Jim DeMint knows his Constitution and in that WE are sending our Representatives to keep FAITH with the Constitution I would say he is about 100X more savvy then you in this moment!
eburke

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
AceInTX
anotherindyfilmguy

the constitutionality of the bill is a lot like asking the crack addict to not to light his pipe while you step outside for a second… pretty predictable that nothing good will come out of it except the other guy feeling good for a few minutes after he compulsively does what he really shouldn’t…
Just_Saying

I really agree with WriteBlock that we need street fighters and not procedurally correct panty-waists, but do we have any?

Seems like the most like street fighters are women — Palin, Baucus — but, please, tell me who our street fighters are!!
arc_ut

One of the reasons I want Cherilyn Eagar to win Bob Bennett’s seat..

Remember Bennett’s Healthcare plan?

Bennett’s bill, S.391 Healthy Americans Act:

(3) COVERAGE FOR FAMILY PLANNING-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a health insurance issuer shall make available supplemental coverage for abortion services that may be purchased in conjunction with enrollment in a HAPI plan or an actuarially equivalent healthy American plan.

(B) RELIGIOUS AND MORAL EXCEPTION- Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a health insurance issuer affiliated with a religious institution to provide the coverage described in subparagraph (A).

The new nail in Bennett’s coffin for Utah’s 2010 US Senate

http://media.bonnint.net/slc/1652/165262/16526211.pdf

Utahns generally are firmly against international (Italy, et all) waste coming to ES in Utah.

Rep. Chaffetz voted against it as well.

The problem is the US Senate.

While this should be a states right in the 1st place, you know amendment 10 and all, we still have Senator Bennett blocking what Chaffetz voted for. Should this bill be at D.C. is something else.

Cherilyn Eagar is supporting Gov. Herbert in saying we don’t want the international (Italy, et all) waste coming to ES in Utah. She is backing him re: the DU question as well.

Soon to be announcing US Candidate Mike Lee is legally (as attorney) defending ES with foreign waste and the DU deal.
arc_ut

Bennett blocks N-waste measure
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13920763

The community-building Alliance for Unity sees no reason for Utah to become a world dumping ground for low-level radioactive waste
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14012399

Will his stand of Energy Solutions, and the abortion provision for his Healthcare plan, be the last nails in the coffin for Bob Bennett’s re-election?
bambooboy

nt
ocleverone

I noticed you have two entries and both of them use “macaca”.
smagar
tedpomeroy

Given the doubtful Constitutionality of the individual mandate,

surely Mr. President you will not object to all revenues to be generated by this legislation to be held in escrow at private fund management companies such as PIMCO, BlackRock etc until this matter is decided by the Supreme Court?
eburke

who called and talked to a staffer in his office. I plan on calling him and Coburn this morning to thank them for being the only people with the testicular fortitude for trying to stand up to this abomination and encouraging (ok, begging and groveling) for him to object to the conferees.

My biggest concern is that he and Tom will get such unbelievable pressure from our ‘leadership’ to play nicey-nice that they’ll fold.

(and btw, if anyone doesn’t think this is a big deal, the AP had a story last night trumpeting the fact that this bill will now move behind closed doors (like it hasn’t been *already*) where those ‘loyal to the President’ will craft it’s final details)

So if you’re reading these words and you haven’t called Coburn & Demint yet…whatcha waitin’ for?
penguin2

As ocleverone notes, you used it in your only two posts here. Not acceptable, and if you think you will get away with it, think again.

http://www.redstate.com/jeffweimer/2009/11/15/sarah-palins-problem-to-solve/#comment-134
edintexas

As someone old enough to remember “Jim Crow” laws and segregated public facilities, I must admit that until the Washington Post, and assorted Democrats, decried “Macaca” as a “racist term” = I had never heard the word. Surely it has a specific meaning which persons other than the staff of the Washington Post and the DNC would recognize. So what does it mean that it is soooo bad? Or is it just that a Republican candidate in a general election used the term , and, since nobody knew what it meant the opposition could make of it what they wanted?
penguin2

And while I myself, had never known of this, the fact that it is makes it unacceptable. I was going to post a link, until I realize the word is in the link; so you can just google the word and learn a great deal. The fact is, posting that word here at RedState, allows it to be associated with us.
edintexas

and oddly enough, apart from references to Macaque monkeys, I found not a single definitive source for defining the term. Understand that I do not consider Wikepedia a reliable* and definitive sourve, not Media Matters, NY Times, sfgate.com, etc. There was an absence of Websters, Britannica, Oxford, etc.

* See recent revelations regarding their Global Warming section.
penguin2

Unfortunately, you are sounding just like Bambooboy, so maybe they will deal with both of you at the same time. You sound like you are advocating it to be an acceptable term, and since it is not, and don’t want to take my word or any of the info available out there, that is the only conclusion I can come to. And while wiki has lots of credibility issues, the Google produced numerous other references…. one can read through them and still get the FACTS needed, to be educated. So, if you still want to say it is not a racial slur, I don’t think you will find it acceptable here. IMHO.
olddog

does anyone read the history of the N.S.G.W.P. and the similar tactics to those used by certain democrats, they used back then, which turned into an autocratic dictatorship.? Turned the world into quite a mess. It did! I was just a child then, and didn’t understand the realities of the world, I just thought the way they marched was cool. Today I realize many of the things I did as a child, were wrong, perhaps some conservative democrats might see things different if the others wouldn’t pressure them so. My Granddad was a conservative democrat, but, me I’m just conservative. I was taught, love of country , hard work ethic, and pride in my Country, and love of God and family, not necessarily in any previous order.

Support our Troops! They still haven’t dropped charges, against the Seals, who did their jobs well. We give terrorists, rights they don’t deserve, and prosecute the men, we ask to protect us, What’s with that?????????????
One Old Dog
edintexas

Facts are established by reputable sources, and you did not cite even one. I don’t know who “bambooboy” is, but I think you need to revisit your understanding of what constitutes a fact. A fact is not a fact because you, the Washington Post, some clown at the NY Times, or some other Leftie, says it is.

I thought only the Lefties were “into” attempting to shut down anyone who does not agree with them (or wishing the moderator does it for them). It seems unlikely that anyone can change your “humble opinion”, so I won’t bother with this thread any longer.
bs61

I just think that he believed the Minority Leader when he said that they would do all in their power to stop it with amendments, then he didn’t.

I believe DeMint is a true conservative. He mentioned during an interview that he and Pence were all alone opposing things in the Bush administration that expanded government and spending.
penguin2

Whether you think it is a proven racial slur or not, really doesn’t matter, because in this country, in this time, there is heightened sensitivity to that word. And that is really all that matters, what the current cultural perception is. And any individual flinging it around as commenter ‘Bambooboy’ upthread did in this post and another, is doing it for a reason, known only to him. Play your word games, the site is moderated for a reason. If the mods ask him for his contextual use, he will have to answer to them.
1stsgt

With this jerk the minority leader the Repub are not going to get very much. I realize the dims control D.C. but we need a new minority leader until the 2010 elections then we will need a Majority leader. I was classified as a Republican, but that is changing. I am now officially an Independent.
http://www.healthinsurance4utah.com utahhealthinsurance

Nice try Arc, but trying to link Mike to Bob through Energy Solutions isn’t going to work. Mike defended them from FEDERAL interference in a State matter. Wouldn’t you say that was defending Utah’s 10th Amendement rights? Just trying to figure out where you are going with this since I know you to be a lover of the Constitution, right?
arc_ut

If you are saying Mike defended Energy Solutions, are you realizing about 80% in Utah want their wings clipped, the Utah Gov. wants their ability to bring in waste limited.

The DU was being rammed down Utah by the federal government.

You can’t have it both ways.

Energy Solutions has been acting like a bully and Mike is defending them. What did he think of this:

http://media.bonnint.net/slc/1652/165262/16526211.pdf

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Jim DeMint to Force a Vote on Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL