History Supports Health Care Mandate

One complaint about President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that it forces uninsured people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, an argument the Supreme Court will have to consider before making a ruling on the law this June. Those opposed to the law tout the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, history would prove them wrong. Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge, has found several examples to the contrary.



In 1790, at the very First Congresses second session, page 134, a law passed called "An Act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchants service," Section 8, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen. how's that for a health care mandate?

In 1792, at the Second Congresses first session, page 417, a law passed called The Second Militia Act of 1792 ("An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.") The law required nearly every "free able-bodied white male citizen" age 18 to 44, within six months, "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges," along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.

Finally in 1798, during the fifth Congresses second session, page 77, was passed the Marine Hospital Service Act ("An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen"). The law expanded the 1790 act and required every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed. The funds, which could be withheld from the seamen, were used "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established" in the port. Leftover funds were used to create hospitals for those mariners.

In regard to the blessing of our founding fathers to such requirements, over 20 of the original 55 framers were involved with this legislation at one time or another. The 1790, and 1792 bills, were signed into law by the father of the country, George Washington. The 1798 act was signed into law by another founder, President John Adams. Professor Elhauge adds "I don’t think anyone objected to any of these laws on constitutional grounds, which presumably someone would have if it was obvious that the original understanding was that such an obligation would be unconstitutional." He continues, "This precedent (like the others) disproves the challengers’ claim that the framers had some general unspoken understanding against purchase mandates. In oral arguments before the court a few weeks ago, the challengers also argued that the health insurance mandate was not “proper” in a way that allows it to be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. These precedents rebut that claim because they indicate that the framers thought not just purchase mandates but medical insurance mandates were perfectly proper indeed."

So there you have it. It's to bad Professor Elhauge couldn't be with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli when making the governments case. However, maybe the Justices will happen across this information as we have, lets hope.

NOTE: A special thanks to loyal long time member Richard Bondurant, for bringing this to my attention, way to go Rich!

Hillary Rosen "Controversy" Is A Republican Nice Try

As one of many media manufactured crisis we are going to see in the next 6 months, the most recent comes from democratic strategist and CNN contributor Hillary Rosen. She recently created a firestorm with her comment attacking Mitt Romney's wife, Ann. In a discussion where Rosen was trying to point out the only way Mitt Romney can connect with women is through his wife, she said Ann Romney had, “never worked a day in her life”. So the media ran with it and turned it into an attack on stay at home moms. Ann Romney responded to Rosen by saying, “My career choice was to be a mother and I think all of us need to know we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make choices to have a career and raise a family, which I think Hilary Rosen has actually done herself. I respect that, that’s wonderful. But there are other people that have a choice, and we have to respect women and all those choices that they make”.

As soon as Rosen's comments hit the airwaves, President Obama, his chief advisers, and the Democratic party leadership, all denounced Rosen's comment. Nobody in 2012 thinks raising children at home is an easy job, that is not the issue, as much as Republicans would have us believe. Mitt and Ann Romney are Republicans. The latest ABC/Washington Post poll of women voters is Obama 57%, Romney 38%, that's a 19 point difference. It is not a "fiction", it is not the result of Obama's economic policies, it is based on facts. Aside from this incredibly lame attempt to put the President on the defensive, the "war on women" is, and continues to be, lead by Republicans. In their words, in their deeds, in their legislation, Republicans cannot run from their actions.

They want to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides thousands of women access to preventive health care they otherwise would not receive. They want life defined at conception. They have offered hundreds of pieces of legislation to limit abortion, access to abortion, and basic pre-natal care. They want to repeal health care reform that makes women pay more just because they're women. They balked on the renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act". When a Romney aide was asked if he supports the "Lilly Ledbetter Act" (which promotes equal pay for women in the workplace), after a 10 second pause he replied, "I'll have to get back to you on that..." The Blunt-Rubio Amendment to the President's health care reform would have allowed employers to deny contraception coverage to women "at their discretion" the amendment was so vague, employers could refuse coverage basically on a whim. Add the countless state efforts to extend waiting times for abortions, forcing women to have invasive and medically unnecessary procedures. They even go so far as to legalize giving women false and misleading information, like abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, which is patently false. They go even further to include protections for the doctors that, under law, have to provide this information. These are all REPUBLICAN IDEAS they may not want to talk about it, they can claim it's false, or fiction, but the truth speaks much louder than any Republican talking point.

The real question here is when Ann Romney says, "we have to respect women and all those choices that they make”, does that include a woman's right to choose? a woman's right to preventive health care? a women's right to be told the truth? a woman's right to be unencumbered by medically unnecessary and invasive procedures that make a difficult situation even more so? a woman's right to get health care at the same cost as men? That my friends is the REAL question here, and the FACTS say NO!

Santorum Is Out, Let The Campaigns Begin

After 11 state victories, and the highly improbable success achieved by Rick Santorum over the last 4 months, The Republican nomination process is effectively over. After a weekend of soul searching, compounded by the hospitalization of his daughter Bella, Father Rick announced his 2012 race for the White House was over.

Several factors can be looked at for his departure from the race at this time. The health of his daughter, is seen as genuine, but from a political stand point probably not a major factor. The major contributor, from my perspective, is the realization he was not going to be able to carry his home state of Pennsylvania. As badly as he wanted to somehow erase his 18 point loss to Bob Casey in 2006, the fact is the polling just wasn't going his way. Add to that the scorched earth strategy Mitt Romney had put into full force, and Santorum was on the ropes before the fight began. On April 3rd, Santorum held a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania, on that same day he lost by 4 points in Wisconsin. By April 5th, Romney had taken a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania, that's an 11 point swing in just 2 days. The battle would have been hard fought, but catastrophic for Santorum if he had lost his home state for a second time.

As I see it, Santorum's lost his chance at the nomination just before the Michigan primary. One week out, and with Romney on the ropes in his home state, Santorum started to verbalize his radical views on women's rights, contraception, and the role of religion in government. This sent just enough people running for cover, which in turn allowed Romney to win Michigan, and put Father Rick on the slippery slope that ended yesterday in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. In addition, his failure to get off those highly charged and incendiary issues, helped further promote his losses in Ohio, Illinois, and finally Wisconsin. He had an excellent chance at winning the Republican nomination, if he had just not taken the exit to crazy town. Sadly, that is an address that more and more Republicans are calling home, and it will carry a similar cost come November.

So mark your calenders, yesterday began the 2012 Presidential race in earnest. It is going to be Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D). The contrast between candidates couldn't be more stark, and the stakes for the nation couldn't be higher. So let the games begin, and may the best man win.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College, Will You Decide?

There has been an ongoing debate for years on the merits of the Electoral College system set up in the Constitution, and a growing cry to change that system to elect the President by the popular vote. While my initial instinct is to resist any major changes to the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, which this would be, the latest arguments for a popular vote system do hold some merit. To weigh the arguments being made, we must first understand how each system works.

Every 10 years the U.S. Census, by counting the nations population, determines how each state is to be represented in Congress for the next 10 years. A states electoral total is equal to the number of Congressional districts, plus its 2 Senators. For example New Jersey has 14 electoral votes, 12 Congressional districts plus its 2 Senators. Under the current Electoral College system the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state, would win ALL of that states electoral votes. Basically a winner takes all system.

In a direct popular vote system, the electoral votes would be given out proportionally. So say the popular vote in N.J. is split down the middle 50-50? Each candidate would receive 7 electoral votes proportional to the popular vote. It seems reasonable with one major exception. In a system where political power is fought for so tenaciously by both parties, it could open the door to a situation like the Florida vote in 2000, on a national scale. This was the exact sentiment echoed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who recently called this “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about”. He went on to explain the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution -- without anybody even noticing..." He continued, The national popular vote would give “every precinct in America the incentive to have a recount so that recounts are going on in 50 states … When the national popular vote total is the way the president is chosen, then every vote in America in every precinct in America would become the subject for endless litigation. There wouldn’t be a chance the presidency would be resolved by Jan. 20 in time for swearing in.” This would, McConnell said, be “a catastrophic outcome” and “a constitutional crisis” that “brings this country to its knees. We’ve never had a situation where the president wasn’t sworn in by the date specified in the Constitution.”

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.

So no matter where you stand on this very important issue, it is equally important to at least become aware of the effort that may change the way we vote, and pick our Presidents. I tend to believe "if it's not broken, don't fix it." The current system has carried us this far, I say stay true to the Constitution. When you begin to alter the intent of that document in a major way, by some state legislated back door process, you're opening a huge can of worms. However, if the National Popular Vote sounds interesting to you, here is a link to give you more information about their arguments and goals.

http://www.fairvote.org/solutions-and-the-case-for-reform

Be informed people, the Constitution is about to be changed without amending that very document. A scary proposition no matter what the issue may be.