O'Reilly: Commerce Clause is "total B.S.," individual mandate for health insurance "unconstitutional"
August 25, 2009 9:09 pm ET
From the August 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRJ1oyhTZAQ
Your post was really stupid.
The host was obnoxious, but the guest is an idiot. According to the guest, the cause of all higher costs is the lack of free market. That is patently absurd. For example, the US, which uses the so-called free-market, pays twice as much as the rest of the industrial countries, and yet we rank 37th in the world. He thinks that if the government didn't tax people, they would be able to afford all health costs.
So I guess from your response you approve of hosts interrupting guests when they don't like what they are saying? O"Donnell's behavior ruined an opportunity for a constructive discussion of the issue.
And rediculous should be ridiculous, pardon me.
link
Libertarianism is not a logical school of thought; it is a fundamentalist ideology.
Laughable. The Left was warning herr dubyah for years about his reckless spending and tax cuts for the rich would lead to an economic meltdown. You are so rediculous [sic].
The "right" continued to control the Congress for the entire 8 years of Mr. Bush's disastrous presidency. BTW, nothing that was done during Bush's administration was "conservative."
Nice try, though.
Yes, which is why I said "The host was obnoxious." I would think that that would clue you that I don't think it is okay to interrupt. O'Reilly regularly interrupts, which, by your post above, you think is okay.
By the way, what does the Peter Schiff interview have to do with the current topic. (Nothing!)
Two different things.
This was true, tre_03, until the companies that decide what is 'usual and customary' were purchased by insiders in the insurance industry. At that point, they offered other insurers the option to use the 'usual and customary' fees they were generating and those estimates were so wildly untrue that they promised those who participated a huge jump in revenue.
There was a lawsuit over this, it was settled amidst huge fines and the insurance companies were forced to relinquish control over these private firms who estimate what is 'usual and customary'. Of course, the fact that insurance companies like playing crooked poker to keep over 30 cents of every premium dollar isn't affecting the cost of health care at all, is it?
O'Reilly ALWAYS talks over guests who don't say what he wants them to say. He calls his show the "No Spin Zone." The true name should be the "No Spin but MY Spin Zone."
Bill O'Reilly has no idea what the constitution says. He told a co-host on this clip to stop talking. He makes a habit of this kind of behavior, and while I could speculate on the psychological origins of such behavior, I will refrain. He called the pursuit of constitutional scholarship 'b.s.', dismissing it completely as though it were unimportant. He is a disgrace.
Basically, O'Reilly is an idiot.
And in case you missed it, Obama's been in office for 7 months. And he's already the worst because he wants people to be healthy and stop 18,000 people from dying each and every year (that's 6 9/11s in case you're wondering).
In any event, my understanding of the proposal is that you don't have to buy insurance, but if you don't you'll pay a tax penalty, which makes sense, since if you break your leg the rest of us pay for it anyway, when you show up in the emergency room.
Thanks for nothing Obama for blowing health care reform! Should have started out strong for single payer, and we might have ended up with a strong public option.
Nader is getting rather old. So how about Bernie Sanders 2012!
And the preamble does not mandate anything.... The Preamble serves solely as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government,[2] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the decisive factor in deciding a case,[3] except regarding frivolous litigation.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Enumerated_powers
There is also, of course, the commerce clause, which Bill O'Reilly finds to be b.s., but as a constitutional scholar, his opinion is worthless.
...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
Promoting the General Welfare was considered so important it was not only stated in the Preamble but also repeated in Article 1, Section 8.
Section 8. Bull O'Really? should certainly be familiar with Section 8!
Sweet no car insurance payments
No morgage payments
My child (if I had one) doesnt have to go to school at all or learn anything
And of course no need to pay my taxes at all I dont have to pay a penny.
Plus the governement will never be able to force my s/o to not get an abortion if she wants it.........
I dont think Bill-O thought that out before he said it
You have just described Billo on any given night.
So then I guess the government cant tell me I cant drink until I'm 21
what do you mean I cant vote because im only 14 (not really, just picked an age at random)
ect ect
(and again I point to abortion and taxes)
I can pick more examples, I picked the first 3 I thought of with the first post even if i was wrong (dont know. dont care), 2 more this time and I'm sure I can get more
Still doesnt change my point about how Bill-O the clown really should have thought about that before he said something that blantently stupid
True only on a technicallity. while each state is free to set the drinking age anywhere they want (as was the case 40 years ago) if they set it below 21 they will not recivce federal funding for roads and other projects according to the federal law
Many believe the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing abortion on a national level was unconstitutional because it took the right to regulate abortion away from the states.
They can believe what they want, doesnt change the fact that the Fed government is legally allowed to regualte abortion because the Supreme Court does say the consistution gives them that power
and the Supreme Court gets to make the final decison on what is Consistutional. You can disagree with a decision but it doesnt mean the decision is unconsistutional
As for taxes, the Constitution gives the federal government the right to collect taxes.
Which therefor proves Bill-O wrong that the Fed cant tell you to do or buy anything. They can force you to pay taxes, and as megan kelly correctly pointed out they can control whatever they tax you on (which is the legal support that allows them to deny states money if they lower the drinking age)
Again as i've said twice before, making a blanket statement about how the Fed cant force you to do anything made Bill-o look like an idiot with no understanding of the law, cause even you, at best agree with him on this issue, or at least on this statement, admit there are holes.
Had Bill-O said the Fed doesnt have the consititutional power to force me to get health insurance, he might be right or wrong i dont know, but he could make a case about that one issue and not have a problem. By making it a blanket statement he IS wrong and makes himself look foolish and like he doesnt understand the consistution.
If only there was someone as schooled in constitutional law on the Democratic side.
Hmm, I guess the president might do, but he really just taught the subject which isn't the same as HillBilly's approach---pulling his opinions out of thin air.
Medicare = Public Option
For Republicans who denounce a public option, they should also denounce Medicare... but instead they use scare tactics to try and persuade the elderly...
In one case the Supreme Court struck down a "guns near schools" federal statute. The Court said there had to be some reasonable, not overly attenuated connection to business. Gun possession is a criminal matter.
However, a few years later they ruled that federal drug laws, namely the ban on marijuana, were within the commerce power. There's a market for pot even though it's illicit. So the cases have been mixed.
Conservatives on the Court do want to check the growth of federal government. But they're are also opposed to "judicial activism." They will not step into this political fray. Believe me. The connection is plain enough: insurance --> payments to doctors --> money --> commerce. This ain't rocket science; that's down the hall.
And since when did this wingnut worry about what was "constitutional"?
Rarely has the Supreme Court determined that the Feds could not use the Commerce Clause and only show a rational basis for the activity. The only significant case was United States v. Lopez and that was because the Federal Government wanted to ban firearms within a certain proximity of schools.
As a lawyer, O'Reilly is quickly losing any respect I might have had for him.
The feds do not have the authority to force a private citizen to buy anything (or punish them if they don't).
Constitutional law is never black & white. That's why we have gobs of lawyers and judges.
Borrowing a quote from this web site: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html
"The national government [up to that point] had no authority to regulate trade between and among the states. The conference was called to discuss ways to facilitate commerce and establish standard rules and regulations."
One of the primary reasons to even create the Constitution was to regulate interstate commerce. Hence the clause.
A point O'Reilly and his "expert" doesn't seem to grasp. (Notice he didn't let his other expert answer his question - "is this constitutional?" She started to say "yes". Then interruptious maximus kicked in.)
Here's the implication of what he seems to be driving at - don't do anything until all possible constitutional implications have been defined.
Doesn't always work that way.
Most of the time, laws are passed within the working knowledge of the Constitution, THEN it winds its way through the courts.
W and the Republicans ran this route a lot.
BTW - States now DO force you to buy car insurance. Duh!
I've re-re-read the Constitution, but I just can't find that reference that guarantees Capitalism.
I'm not against Capitalism. But, I don't see the connection in the argument that a public option is unconstitutional.
Anyone care to take a crack at this?
PS - I'm not necessarily promoting the public option as the solution. I'm for any solution that will work. And I'm for discussing points based in reality.