Making up the constitution as Dems make the law

David Hirsayni:

What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people?

When House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., was recently asked to identify where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance, he replied, "Under several clauses; the good and welfare clause and a couple others."

For those of you who aren't familiar with the "good and welfare" clause, it states that "The Congress shall have Power to make Citizens of each State compelled to partake of the Privileges of Health Care Insurance, & those who refuse will be fined, charged with a misdemeanor crime or lashed (or receive Medicaid)."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Constitution featured a "good and welfare" clause — though, obviously, Washington has done a laudable job fulfilling the latter part of this imaginary passage.

(We'd be better off mandating that elected officials own a copy of the Constitution.)

It has, actually, been widely speculated that Conyers, a lawyer, was referring to the "general welfare" clause that gives Congress the authority to tax and spend to promote the general welfare.

The other "clauses" he mentions are likely the long-abused "commerce clause," which gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states."

Attorneys general from 14 states and other state legislatures disagree with Conyers, and have already mounted legal challenges to the constitutionality of individual mandates. Few people believe they will be successful in their admirable cause.

...

Surely it is inarguable that the debate over a national mandate epitomizes the central ideological divide in the country today.

In broad terms, there is one side that believes liberty can be subverted for the collective good because government often makes more efficient and more moral choices.

Then there is the other side, which believes that people who believe such twaddle are seditious pinkos.

...

It is said that the Supreme Court reads the polls too. If so, they they will note that most folks despise the individual mandate. It is an attack on freedom from commerce. The lawsuits correctly ask quo warranto, by what authority do you make this law. Better lawyers than Conyers will defend it, but they still have a difficult case to make.