Sheesh. This is getting to be a near-weekly occurrence: some metro area supporter of John Sidney McCain III, fed up with the government takeover orchestrated by that socialist Kenyan, pens a poorly reasoned and logically unsound letter to the editor of the Star, which dutifully prints the letter in the name of open debate. The only problem? The people firing off these missives do little more than reveal just a stunning lack of understanding about — well, about pretty much everything. This week the batter is Joe Neuner of Olathe, who probably needs to study how Con Law actually works.
Practically everything Obama has proposed or done thus far in his term as president could be challenged in a court of law as unconstitutional. This appears quite unseemly for a person who gratuitously describes himself as a constitutional lawyer.
For example, where in the Constitution does it allow a president to require anyone to purchase health insurance? Where does it allow him to take over publicly owned companies such as General Motors or Chrysler? Where is his authority to fire the CEO of GM? Where is his authority to appoint more than 30 “czars” who are accountable to no one but him? It goes on ad nauseam.
The folks marching on Washington were right. We need to rid ourselves of all of the watchdogs in Congress. Not one of them has made a peep. Throw all of the bums out. Getting rid of some of the media is not a bad idea, either.
Bravo, Joe! Your scholarship is obviously important to you. Unfortunately, it’s also almost totally wrong.
In the interest of fairness, we’ll first concede a point: the individual health insurance mandate may very well be unconstitutional — but that’s a matter to eventually be taken up by the courts (who would likely support it in the end). The bigger issue here is that Joe clearly does not understand the principle of an organic document; the genius of our founding compact is that it erects a basic framework and allows lawmakers to expand government services within limits.
True, the Constitution does not specifically allow for the government takeover of an auto company — though we’d seriously dispute Joe’s phrasing in the matter, since the government stewardship only came when the companies filed for bankruptcy — but neither does it allow for much of our contemporary federal structure. As is easily discovered, Section 8 of Article 1 is very specific in denoting what Congress may do: collect taxes, establish courts, etc. You see anything in there about Medicare? How about creating a Department of Homeland Security? What about holding hearings on the future of journalism, as the Senate did recently?
No, you’ll find none of those — because the Constitution is a framework, not a clear enumeration of powers and limits. Jesus, Joe. This is the kind of thing taught in ninth-grade civics classes. Please allow us to introduce you to the “necessary and proper clause,” as in “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” Wow, how about that? You mean the Constitution allows Congress and the other branches to adapt laws to changing circumstances? And that that’s the genius of the document, and the wisdom of the founders? Huh.
This is getting old, guys. There are plenty of solid arguments to be made about limited government, worrisome deficits (though you guys didn’t seem to mind so much from, say, 2001-2008), and encroachments on private rights. But when you merely spout the same tired tripe about czars and bailouts — and you know Nixon started the czar thing, right? — you reveal yourselves as unoriginal, unthinking, and uninformed citizens. Make a solid point, and liberals will listen. Illustrate your shockingly poor knowledge of how the U.S. operates, and everyone will laugh. Deservedly.