(2010-05-25) — The Obama administration, in a brief filed in federal court Monday, said the Commonwealth of Virginia’s claim that the president’s health reform plan is “unconstitutional” demonstrates a “woefully narrow and provincial grasp of constitutionality.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the court, “Despite Virginia’s outlandish claims, the constitutionality of this measure was carefully vetted by White House lawyers, and by the president himself, who was once a constitutional lecturer. There are actually dozens of nations around the globe in which our health reform plan is, in fact, constitutional — Burma, Venezuela and Cuba, to name just a few.”
The Virginia suit claims that a federal mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Legal experts had initially suggested the administration would counter such lawsuits by invoking the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, which gives Congress the power “…to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes…” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)
However, because Democrats are not yet ready to impose the individual mandate on foreign nations, Ms. Sebelius said, “the president chose a legal strategy more in keeping with his commitment to the people of the world.”
14 responses so far ↓
1 Scott_Ott // May 25, 2010 at 10:48 am
SCRAPPLEFACE READER ALERT: Your words could appear in Scott Ott's new book, Laughing at Obama: Volume I. Just write a brief (25 words or fewer) blurb, expressing your feelings about ScrappleFace satire, and send it to info@MacMenaminPress.com or use the contact form at the publisher's website. Include your name, town and state. We can't guarantee your praise for Scott's writing will be included in the book, but MacMenamin Press plans to use as many as possible. Hurry though, it's about to go to print. You can pre-order your copy, or case, now at http://www.LaughingAtObama.com
2 Hawkeye_R // May 25, 2010 at 11:57 am
Hey Scott. Glad to do my part.
3 Hawkeye_R // May 25, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I guess I'm one of those who fall into the "woefully narrow and provincial" category.
(:D)
4 ScrappleFace // May 25, 2010 at 12:16 pm
I once rode a horse down a whoa-fully narrow path.
5 Hawkeye_R // May 25, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Me too. (:D)
6 survivalsupplies4u // May 25, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Great Scot! Scot you've done it again.
Maybe if we pull back on the reins hard enough in November, we can
send these old donkey's out to pasture. This includes RINO'S.
7 ChileSerrano // May 25, 2010 at 11:59 am
<DIV id=idc-comment-msg-div-77056290 class=idc-message><A class=idc-close title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(77056290)"><SPAN>Close Message</SPAN>
Comment posted.
<P class=idc-nomargin><A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" class=idc-share-facebook onclick=IDC.ui.fb_wrapper(77056290) href="javascript: void(null)"><SPAN class=idc-share-inner><SPAN>Share on Facebook</SPAN></SPAN> or <A href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(77056290)">Close MessageTwo, three. many constituions !
Didn't we say that … <A href="http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6036/6036_33.html" target=_blank>back in the day ?
8 ChileSerrano // May 25, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Two, three, many constitutions !
Isn't that what they used to say - back in the day ?
9 onlineanalyst // May 25, 2010 at 8:32 pm
You mean that the ride was not a whoa-filly one?
10 onlineanalyst // May 25, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Never was the Commerce Clause subjected to more nonsense than it is now via the O-care mandate. The provision does not allow for the federal government to compel the purchase of a commodity. Is Sebeilus another of those "Constitutional scholars" who devise their interpretations out of whole cloth?
11 Anneke9 // May 25, 2010 at 9:28 pm
I'm new to the site and almost choked when I saw the blurb in my email Inbox. You know you've disappeared down the rabbit hole when satire reads like reality.
12 camojack // May 26, 2010 at 4:21 am
Sebelius Calls Health Act Constitutional in Many Countries
Those who wish to could always try relocating to the aforementioned countries.
Just sayin'…
13 BitterPAExPat // Jun 1, 2010 at 7:14 pm
All she needs is one of Arlen's Scottish Law citations and she is golden!
14 Token Conservative · Laugh it off! // Jun 2, 2010 at 2:55 am
[...] Scrappleface uses the theory of legal academics (and half the Supreme Court) that decisions by foreign judges about foreign constitutions in cases unconnected to the U.S. help determine the meaning of the U.S. constitution to analyze the constitutionality of Obama/Reid/PelosiCare. Even if the states that are challenging the law’s constitutionality are right under American constitutional understanding, the administration might convince the Court that the law should be upheld because it is constitutional under various foreign constitutions. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.