At issue | Oct. 3 Herald-Leader editorial, "Why requiring insurance makes sense for all; Example: protecting sick children
The Herald-Leader editorial went to great lengths to explain why requiring every U.S. citizen to carry health insurance makes sense. But it failed to consider the first and most basic question: Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to require every American to purchase health insurance?
It clearly does not.
The 10th Amendment states: "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."
Never miss a local story.
Unless the editorial board can point to the specific powers granted to the general government in the Constitution, any health-care solutions should rightly come through the states.
Proponents of nationalized health care mangle two constitutional provisions to justify federal control of health care.
Progressives argue that the power to regulate interstate commerce grants Congress sweeping authority to regulate virtually everything, including health care. This represents a gross misunderstanding of what the framers meant by interstate commerce and the reason they included such power.
The framers granted Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce to prevent states from imposing tariffs on one another, thus inhibiting trade. It was never intended as a positive power, allowing Congress to implement regulations on things like health care.
James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, made this clear: "It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government."
Progressives also use the taxing authority granted Congress in Article 1 Sec. 8 to argue that the federal government has the power to regulate health care. It reads: "The Congress shall have Power 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."
The Constitution then lists 18 specific things to which federal taxing authority applies. Proponents of wide-ranging federal power point to the words "general welfare," arguing Congress has the power to levy taxes for any purpose that generally benefits the nation.
But again, the writings of the framers do not support this view. Alexander Hamilton states in Federalist 83 that listing specific applications of taxing power would be redundant if the authority implied unlimited powers.
But progressives will argue that the courts have expanded these constitutional powers and the federal government does indeed possess the power to mandate health insurance.
Madison argued that state governments have a duty to "interpose" for the people when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority.
The founders understood the dangers of expansive centralized power. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
They created a system designed to keep that power in check. They granted limited, enumerated powers to the federal government and left everything else to the states. The dangers of expansive power held in the hands of a few remains no less nefarious with the passage of time.
The Herald-Leader argues that because requiring all citizens to carry health insurance is a good idea and would benefit the nation, federal power should make this happen. But good intentions do not justify ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution.
Pragmatism should never trump principles. And the editorial board would be wise to remember that in 1798, the federal government thought it was a good idea, and beneficial to the nation, to arrest dissenting newspaper editors under the Sedition Act.