Bachmann: Health care reform efforts unconstitutional

By Andy Birkey
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 1:11 pm

bachmannhannitySpeaking with Fox’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night, Rep. Michele Bachmann asserted that health care reform is not constitutional, and falsely equated a public option with a “national takeover of health care.”

“[I]t is not within our power as members of Congress, it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution for us to design and create a national takeover of health care. Nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive.”

According to the United States Constitution, Congress does have the power to provide for the general welfare of the nation. “The Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.”

Hannity followed up, “All right, Congresswoman. Still haven’t figured out why liberals don’t like you so much. I think it’s because you actually believe in the Constitution. But we’re honored to have you here.”

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter


Comments

20 Comments

Mill
Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

What? Representative Bachmann still saying truly crazy stuff on tv? Imagine that. She should go to her Mn 6th District constituents and tell them that Medicare, social security … they have to stop immediately .. because they too must be similarly unconstitutional. That might get even her more ardent supporters among the elderly to start thinking about who represents them in such counterproductive ways


JohnK
Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

Bachmann would to eliminate medicare and privatize social security which is why so many Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, are supportive or afraid to criticize her.


bud dingler
Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

did I hear Bachmann say “normal Americans”?

is she qualified to make that statement?


Jesus St. Jesus
Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

…if “normal” means psychotic, hypocritical, paranoid, rascist closeted bisexual wingut: yes, then she is a “normal American”.


Aubrey Immelman
Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

I’m used to Rep. Bachmann calling things she doesn’t like “unconstitutional,” so what struck me most in Hannity’s interview with Bachmann on Fox News was this misleading statement by Bachmann:

In talking about Obama’s health care proposals, Bachmann said: “We are listening to our constituents. We’re holding town hall meetings.”

Now, she didn’t say *she* was holding town hall meetings, but that’s certainly the impression she created.

Of course, we know Bachmann has never held a town hall meeting on health care (are any town hall meeting for that matter, other then telephone “town hall” meeting and forums with guest speakers where she personally takes no questions from constituents).


Constitutional Scholar Michele Bachmann: Congress Can’t Reform Health Care | The Lie Politic
Pingback posted August 20, 2009 @ 3:49 am

[...] The Minnesota Independent, Andy Birkey flags the always-entertaining Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-Minn.) appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” last night. During the interview, Bachmann asserted that Congress’ health care reform [...]


Anna
Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 10:14 am

There’s some great stuff in this interview for her opponent to use in the next campaign.

Postcard to send to all seniors in the district:

“Bachmann on Medicare: It’s Unconstitutional”

The text: Repeat her words about how government run healthcare is constitutional. But hey, Medicare IS government run healthcare, so she is obviously AGAINST it.

Duh. If I were over 65 and on Medicare I’d be VERY scared of Michele Bachmann.


Anna
Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 10:15 am

Correction: The text: Repeat her words about how government run healthcare is UNconstitutional.


Colin
Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 11:00 am

The arguments these so-called Constitutionalists use about unconstitutionality stem from a passage in the Federalist Papers, but it is clear that the founders were not unambiguous about the meaning of “general welfare.” The reality is that Monroe and Hamilton disagreed fiercely about the issue and therefore, these folks argue that Alexander Hamilton was a damned liberal Commie because he thought public education and similar uses of public monies promoted the general welfare. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled throughout history based upon Hamilton’s interpretation of the phase, so they further argue that the Supreme Court justices who ruled this way are activist judges.


markmwhite
Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 11:11 am

Common sense constitutional question for Colin:

If the general welfare clause is meant to be applied broadly, as you suggest (correctly I believe) was Hamilton’s intent, what if any is the limit to federal government authority? I believe that Hamilton was misguided, some would say incorrect in his view of federal powers. That doesn’t make him a damned liberal commie (but it is kind of fun to say). It makes him a statist, to the detriment of our country and to the diminution of the power of personal liberty and states rights.


Tom Degan
Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

The other day, I received an interesting and very instructive e-mail from my brother Jeff who lives in France. He asked me to share it with the readers of my blog. I think I will share it with you also.

“As an American who has been living in Europe for most of the last 20 years, one who has visited doctors numerous times in four different countries, whose two children were brought into this world in European hospitals (France and England), who has himself spent a week in a public British hospital, and who underwent an operation in a private British clinic, I think I can say a thing or two about health care in Europe.

“Our out of pocket expenses for the births? Zero, even though in France my wife spent 5 days in the hospital after the birth, which is standard, by the way.

“During the three years we lived in England, we never once paid for medicine for our children. Children get drugs for free in the UK. Visits to the GP are free for everybody.

“My expenses for the week in the NHS hospital? Zero.

“The cost of the operation in the private clinic? Zero, it was covered by my work insurance, as was the post-op physical therapy I needed.

“In Western Europe you would never be forced to sell your home in order to pay for your medical bills, as happens all too often in America when catastrophic illness strikes and the insurance company decides that your condition was ‘pre-existing’.

“The quality of the care? Mostly good. French hospitals are excellent, even the food is decent. The food at the NHS hospital was beyond awful, but then again most English food is pretty bad (though they do have great Indian food). At night, they were understaffed, but I am guessing that, apart from that place where Dr. House works, most American hospitals are understaffed at night, too.

“In short, in the US, you pay more, get less, and die younger than we do in Europe. What part of that don’t you understand?

“My fellow Americans, you have nothing to fear except those who would use fear to keep you enslaved to the myth of the might of the American health care system.”

Jeff Degan

What can I tell you? The guy is a Communist. Not only does he live in France, he actually likes it there. An eternal shame to our family’s good name. Let us boil down his seven paragraphs to their juicy essentials, shall we?

HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY SUCKS.

Here is (Excuse me, I meant to say, “Here was“) a golden opportunity for real reform and the idiotic Americans are screaming about socialism. Is it any wonder that we have become the laughingstock of the Western world?

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

PS – Aren’t you folks just a tad embarrassed by Michelle Bachmann? Minnesota is such a great state. Pity.


Nika
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

Funny how United Health Group, who is one of the largest HMOs, is based in Minnesota. Somehow I don’t believe that her best interests are with uninsured Americans.


Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian « Question Everything
Pingback posted August 30, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

[...] you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re [...]


Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch
Pingback posted August 30, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

[...] you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re [...]


What Pundits Are Saying » Blog Archive » Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian
Pingback posted September 1, 2009 @ 5:29 am

[...] you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re [...]


Libertarianism: A safe haven for US conservatives? « Dead Wild Roses
Pingback posted September 7, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

[...] you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re [...]


jason
Comment posted September 10, 2009 @ 2:33 am

Forcing everyone to have insurance or face a heavy fine absolutely is unconstitutional. We are guaranteed a right to “life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.”


Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian « Relevant Editorial
Pingback posted September 15, 2009 @ 4:55 am

[...] you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re [...]


Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian « Relevant Editorial
Pingback posted September 15, 2009 @ 4:55 am

[...] you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re [...]


Tim Griffis
Comment posted November 10, 2009 @ 7:06 am

The truth is that most of FDR’s new deal had been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court including fledgling attempts at social security. FDR intimidated the court with his attempt to grant himself greater power by the appointment of additional justices. It was after this attempted power grab that the court began to grant FDR’s new deal.
FDR sought and succesfully skirted the balance of power our founders built into the constitution and power shifted from the states and the people to the federal government. We have been the victim of Federal power ever since.
With each law, each tax, each regulation your freedom is washed away. If we allow this unabashed usurpation of our freedom called health care reform to happen we will be a free people no more.
America will have become the property of the oligarchy in Washington and our Republic will be lost.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.