Posted by Matt Hawes on 12/22/09 3:49 PM   [Newer: Senate bumping up Health Care vote again] [Older: Time for a sensible foreign policy]

Press release just out from Senator Jim DeMint's office:

December 22, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill's constitutionality.

"I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats' proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country," said Senator Ensign. "As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don't believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens."...

Read the rest.

Posted 12/22/09 4:29 PM mattress Milwaukee, WI

WTF they get to vote on whether the bill is constitutional or not? Isn't constitutionality something that shouldn't be subject to a vote? Won't the people who voted for it simply vote that it is constitutional?

Posted 12/22/09 4:55 PM WinstonSmith1984 Oceania, United Kingdom

agree, mattress. I thought the Supreme Court determines Constitutionality. It's good to see them (at least pretend to) care before that, though.

Posted 12/22/09 5:24 PM mstebbins Excelsior, MN

I doubt anyone thinks the socialists will sprout lightbulbs over their heads when the question of Constitutionality comes up.

Posted 12/22/09 5:43 PM MountainDoc Lewisburg, WV

Winston, Although I'm sure you know, I'm going to add a quick clarification for those who don't. Rights preceed the Constitution. The Constitution simply acknowledges what we know in a written form to shove in politicians faces when they try and violate what is given to us by God. The Supreme Court in principle is not the final arbiter of Constitutionality. Originally there was concurrent review of the constitutionality of actions not just by all three branches, but by the state governments as well (The federal government being a created agent of the states and not the other way around). Supreme Court Justice John Marshall was the first to establish the practice of "Judicial Review" under the Andrew Jackson administration. Jackson is famous for saying "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". In practice today we have given the Supreme Court final decision on all matters constitution. It was not intended to be this way.

Posted 12/22/09 5:51 PM RhysW ann arbor, MI

they will vote it up... but all it means is congress thinks its constitutional. it wont mean that it is. We know that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRO5iCWpps Marbury v Madison is where the precedent for judicial review of constitutionality comes from. It is also where it was "settled" who determines what is constitutional. I think the issue of who decides what is constitutional is the biggest problem the republic can and will ever face and is why there's so many problems.

Posted 12/22/09 7:00 PM Glenn Cumming, GA

Passage from the press release: The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater. The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” Notice two things: 1. the penalty would apply to taxable income 2. lawful residence in the United States is conditional upon compliance It will be interesting to see what definition of 'United States' will be used and in what section of the Internal Revenue Code the 'penalty' shows up. Hint: An American is not necessarily the same thing as a resident of the United States and taxable income is not necessarily all-that-comes-in. Check it out: www.losthorizon.com

Posted 12/22/09 7:06 PM Joey Batz Brooklyn, NY

As silly as voting on whether or not a bill is constitutional sounds, I think it is actually a good thing. Because, essentially, these senators will go officially on record as for or against the Constitution itself. They will essentially be voting on whether or not it is OK to violate the Constitution, and that vote will be there for all Americans to see. The proponents of this disastrous reform have been able to hide behind the [true] argument that the current health care system is in shambles, the the insurance companies are ripping us off, and that overhaul and reform are needed right now. But now they will have to justify this bill by the Constitution. There's no way it can be reasonably done, and they'll end up having to explain to the people why it's OK for them to violate the Constitution. If all goes well, that is.

Posted 12/22/09 7:36 PM John Anderson II Queen Creek, AZ

I wonder how states, like Arizona, which have passed laws to nullify mandated insurance, will go about protecting its citizens from these kind of repercussions? For instance if I choose not to buy insurance *and* I choose not to pay the penalty, if I'm audited or whatever, I'll be tried in a federal tax court where I'll be found guilty will I not? Most of these questions are rhetorical, I'm just curious to see what my state legislators and executive plan on doing about actually enforcing this nullification law.

Posted 12/22/09 8:50 PM MarilyninLakeJackson Lake Jackson, TX

Interesting day on C-Span. Rep. Parker Griffith, Dem. from Alabama and one of the Blue Dog Democrats, announced that he is as of today changing from Democrat to Republican. There is a video of it on cspan.org, and it is very confirming and revealing of how the Dems are doing. Love it.

Posted 12/22/09 9:19 PM benwetherbee Milton, FL

That's interesting, Marilyn. http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/12/22/HP/A/27656/Rep+Parker+Griffith+DAL+A nnounces+Switch+to+Republican+Party.aspx I'm surprised they haven't plastered this on the front page.

Posted 12/22/09 10:53 PM dbhohio47 Columbus, OH

"Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill's constitutionality." All I can say on the matter is that is about F**KING time that someone stood up and raised this question! If calling for a point of order is so simple, why hasn't this come up CONSTANTLY over the last 50 years or so?!!!

Posted 12/22/09 11:25 PM rileyb Arcadia, CA

You guys are right to bring up the issue of state nullification in contrast to "judicial review" as the extreme last defense to decide constitutional issues, as well as bring up the hypocrisy of those who will vote to block this bill (all Republicans I'm assuming). If it does go before the Supreme Court, it may be swiftly defeated, yet what we should be advocating for is state nullification as happened with the REAL ID act.

Posted 12/22/09 11:42 PM CharlotteJuett Genoa, NE

I watched Nebraska's governor, Tom Heiniman, tell Ben Nelson, to strip the provision from the bill that gives Nebraskans exemption from the unfunded mandate to expand Medicare and tell him that Nebraskans are not so unethical as to expect the rest of the country to pay for something that they alone will receive. He also told him to vote no on cloture and kill this bill.

Posted 12/23/09 01:25 AM RomanRepublic Hicksville, NY

Constitutionality has been found to lie with the courts. The "Point of Order" raised by the Senate therefore has no formal determination over what is Constitutional or not. However, it is a good measure to have the Senate "find it Constitutional" before they proceed. Business in the Senate cannot continue until a Point of Order is resolved. Therefore, under this practice if a bill is blatantly unconstitutional, there is a chance the proponents of it will be unable to proceed. They should have to "prove" the Constitutionality of every component that is under question.

Posted 12/23/09 08:15 AM MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

My understanding of the Bill is that it somehow includes language to exempt itself from repeal. This is not just unconstitutional, it is contrary to the entire history of the United States from the time of its emergence from the Monarchy of the British Empire. A careful reading of Paine's 'Common Sense' should focus on the idea that one of the main objections to Monarchy was its aspect of one generation binding subsequent generations. This idea is entirely antithetical to the idea of a democratic representative form of government. The idea of governmental indebtedness violates this principle also.

Posted 12/23/09 11:48 AM Ike Hall Clarkston, GA

The entire point of check-and-balances is so that any branch of government, any bureaucrat, any congressman, any senator, any judge, or any juror, can judge for themselves what is constitutional and what is not and act accordingly. It is a negative assessment. If the powers asserted by the federales are not among those enumerated as having been delegated to the federal government, the state governments, or any judge or any jury, CAN THROW IT OUT. BTW, Glenn, it's www.losthorizons.com. ;-)

Posted 12/23/09 3:59 PM mstebbins Excelsior, MN

Was there ever a vote on this?