Ensign says Senate's health care bill violates Constitution

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Ensign charged this morning that the health care bill being debated in the Senate violates the Constitution by requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Ensign, R-Nev., raised a point of order against the bill on behalf of Republicans looking to delay its passage. It likely will be voted upon on Wednesday.

It was the latest attempt by Republicans to stall the historic measure, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada signaled Democrats have the votes to set it aside as they continue to move to final passage on Christmas Eve.

"We feel very sound in our position" that the bill is constitutional, Reid said. Bill sponsors say the mandate is authorized by clauses in the Constitution that give Congress powers to regulate commerce and to impose taxes.

At an appearance this morning with health care advocates who are supporting the bill, Democrats began a round of self-congratulations.

The bill will extend health coverage to 30 million more people while making it more difficult for insurers to deny claims or refuse to sell policies to individuals.

"The finish line is in sight," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Democrats singled out Reid, who engineered compromises and maneuvered the thorny legislation from the beginning at the behest of President Barack Obama.

"With the passage of this bill, Harry Reid will have earned his place in the Senate's history," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "To put it in biblical terms, he has the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the endurance of Samson. He has hung in there day after day and he is about to achieve what has eluded so many majority leaders going back half a century."

On the Senate floor nearby, Republicans continued pounding away at the bill they maintain will increase health premiums, raise government spending and go to new levels in inserting Uncle Sam between patients and doctors.

Weeks ago, a constitutional challenge to the bill was set aside in the Finance Committee after Democratic leaders ruled it was non germane. It has persisted as an issue among conservatives and Ensign and other GOP senators said this morning they wanted a vote.

"Is it really constitutional for this body to tell all Americans that they must buy health insurance coverage? And if so, what's next? Will we consider legislation in the future requiring every American to buy a car?" Ensign said.

Under the bill, people would be required to purchase minimum health coverage by 2016 or pay a penalty of $750 or 2 percent of their income, whichever is more.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the bill puts the nation "in uncharted political and legal waters."

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering people to do it,"he said.

As a counter some have pointed to the requirement that people buy car insurance in order to drive.

Ensign argued that people who don't drive don't need to buy insurance while the Senate's bill requires Americans to buy health insurance "whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation."

Comments

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

1. Commonfknsense Dec. 28, 2009 | 7:53 a.m. Report Abuse

   The words of two of the most ridiculous Senator's ever elected will not sway my opinion of the need for this Bill. Why even bother writing an article about what these two clowns have to say about anything?

2. motovegas Dec. 22, 2009 | 11:17 p.m. Report Abuse

   lvsunrise - amen brother. as another native Nevadan who works and takes care of his own (and many others) and who pays an exceptional amount of taxes every year, I agree with you. It is easy to say the government should provide more and more benefits to more and more people, to be paid for by fewer and fewer tax payers (ie, "the rich") when you are not the one paying the taxes. Hitler did the same thing as Obama is doing. He bribed the majority of the populace into voting for him. He bribed them with promises (money and benefits) that ultimately were financed by plundering the assets of other countries like Poland, France, Russia, etc. Germany had no choice but to invade Europe because it was broke. Hitler also used the assets of the Jews as he displaced and killed them. And he taxed "the rich" as well, sometime at rates that exceeded 100%. But the majority of Germans were happy because they actually prospered during the war while the populations of every other country involved in the conflict suffered a reduction of living standards. The majority of Germans lived high off the efforts and assets of the rest of Europe for several years until they got beat. The Germans could not keep up the expansion necessary to keep paying the benefits it promised its citizens, and so the war machine got overextended and beaten. Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. Here we go again . . .

3. Animosity Dec. 22, 2009 | 11:17 p.m. Report Abuse

   You liberals crack me up. So it states in the constitution to provide for the common welfare of the people. OK. Wouldn't it be more prudent to provide everyone with employment, FIRST. I'm tired of taking the bus, I want a car, maybe I'll take yours. It is socailism after all, its for the greater good. How come everyone doesnt have a 7 course dinner on the dining room table. Whats next free houses for the masses. There's a lot of homeless here that would love to share a bedroom in your house for free. Get real people. If this health care disaster by Reid and the donkeycrats is so good, how come they have written in that Congress is exempt from participating in it. If its good for one it should be good for all, correct??? Ha-ha LOL. The constitution also states to secure the blessings of liberty. Liberty as defined by wikipedia is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. Otherwords freedom. Where is our will at when Congress is jamming this down our throats. Not only do I want to be free from you liberal minded socialists. I want to be free of you. Read the Constitution, once, word for word. Oh thats right, you went to public school, they dont teach you how to read or about the constituition.

4. motovegas Dec. 22, 2009 | 11:06 p.m. Report Abuse

   The constitution does not say that it is to "provide for the common welfare of the people". It says it is to "promote the general welfare". It further provides, at Section 8 where the "Powers of Congress" are provided that:
   
   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.
   
   Does anyone believe that the "Nebraska Compromise" utilized to buy the 60th vote is consistent with the constitution? I would like to see that explained. How about reading the Constituion before quoting it.

5. cust300 Dec. 22, 2009 | 11:03 p.m. Report Abuse

   Mr. Ensign , Most of the folks on here are dumb as rocks. I don't worry about your personal life, it's yours. I do worry about what the gov't is doing. I think you are , along with Gov. Gibbons the only one's trying to do whats right. As a native Nevadan, I take care of me and mine. It's clear that most posts here are from california and desire gov't babysitters. Thank you senator for trying to keep america sorta free. I feel we should vote to return all mexicans to mexico and californians to California. Nevada would be great again!

Read All Comments