I don’t usually comment on things in the news unless I have something to say that I haven’t heard anyone else say. Two times in the past couple days I’ve seen someone either not answer, or give the wrong answer, to a question regarding the healthcare bill.
The question was first asked yesterday by Woopi Goldberg on The View. Elizabeth Hasselbeck was objecting to the bill because it is mandated that we all have it. Woopi asked what’s wrong with that since we are already required to have other insurance, such as auto insurance? She got no answer. None at all.
This morning on the 700 Club Gordon Roberts asked Jay Sekulow, who is a constitution lawyer, why it was a problem that this is mandated since we already have to have auto insurance? Same question. He got an answer but I think it was totally the wrong answer. Jay Sekulow said it was a problem because for auto insurance you get a benefit. You get to have a driver’s license and you get to have a vehicle. Oh, for Heaven’s sake!
Now I have to say what I didn’t hear these folks say. The reason a state – not the federal government – can require auto insurance is that their state constitution doesn’t say that they can NOT require auto insurance. A state can do anything its constitution doesn’t prohibit. The Federal Government can only do what the US Constitution tells it do to. The Federal Government is restrained by the Constitution. And the US Constitution does not tell the Federal Government they can force us to buy a product or have any kind of insurance. This is why we are hearing about the 10th Amendment and states are filing lawsuits to stop this legislation.
I’ve only learned this in the past few years as I’ve been listening to folks like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Jacob Hornberger explain a few things. I hope folks will calm down and quit yelling, gather a few facts, and do a little bit of reasoning with each other.