The "Ridiculous" Question of Whether Government Health Mandates Are Unconstitutional

I do think the question is "ridiculous" in this sense -- few in government, including the Courts, have much of an interest in precisely what the Constitution does and does not permit, does and does not outlaw, anymore.

As a practical matter, the Constitution is no longer much of restraining force on the actions of the government, except for a few key areas beloved by liberals. "Constitutional law" is now really mostly about political power. If you have the power to do it, you can do it.

Unconstitutional laws in the advance of the socialistic welfare state never pass, for if they pass, none dare call them unconstitutional.

A less-ridiculous question would be "Should members of Congress at least take the question of a law's constitutionality seriously?" Should they at least pay lip service to the Constitution any more?

As was seen in Pelosi's and Leahy's dismissive, disdainful remarks, they no longer even bother doing that.

Shouldn't they have at the very least pretended and made some sort of argument, or said, "I think we do have that power, but I'll have my staff look into it [and simply confirm what I'm claiming without really examining the issue]?"

Jazz Shaw writes that this is not a ridiculous question at all. At least, that is, in a hypothetical alternate universe where we were still a constitutional republic.

Which we're basically not anymore.

Via Hot Air's headlines.

Observation: This is a general observation; I don't have the rigor of actual research to back it.

But it seems to me that a very large part of "constitutional law" is now whether or not the government can deny this or that benefit to this person. A very tiny part is whether the government had any constitutional power to grant such benefits in the first place.

posted by Ace at 02:53 PM

| Access Comments