George Will: Health Reform Provision Could Be Unconstitutional

goopy, you are a one trick pony and it's a tired trick at that. This story isn't about Bush and the fact that your assertion is wrong to begin with is immaterial. You folks have to come up with a better diversion than the reflexive finger-pointing at Bush. He's not the one attempting to federalize health care. He did not engineer hte takeover of two domestic carmakers. He was not behind the failed spendulus bill. He's not the one voting 'present' on Afghanistan.

The point is, the federal govt cannot compel you to buy anything. If Dems want to hide behind the part about 'the general welfare' as their smokescreen for passing a health bill, that is one thing. However, they cannot REQUIRE citizens - under threat of prison - to buy any product or service. For a liberal, that sort of misuse of govt force should be a point of concern, one you cannot blame on Bush, no matter how much twisted pretzel logic you try to use.

You're right that the article IS about constitutionality, but regarding health care reform, not the alleged or real transgressions of previous administrations. Besides, who is stopping children from getting health care? Really poor kids are covered under Medicaid. Then there is the SCHIP program, which I don't recall Bush disliking even though it covered kids in families earning close to 90K a year, a level at which we might expect some self-reliance.

Okay, so you're up to two tricks: it's all Bush's fault, and the time-tested 'what about the children'. Anyway, reform isn't about the children; it's not even about their parents. It is about govt spreading its tentacles into one more part of people's lives. If they want a better system, make state lines irrelevant in terms of buying or at least work with states to open competition to more than a couple of carriers. Look what happened when Ma Bell was deregulated.

And stop with the talking point about doing nothing. Congressional Repubs have introduced a few bills re: health care; none has (predictably) gotten a hearing. And I don't hear the Dems talking about market-based reforms; they just see an excuse to grab more power.

A socialist or a communist could not effectively run the U.S. government in a communist or socialist manner because the belief structure of either philosophy would present a constitutional problem for any enacted legislation.

In socialist or communist nations, the goverments can enact any legislation or rule they want without the input of any elected officials. In fact, these types of countries have no elected officials just despot dictators and pseudo-Prime Ministers or Presidents. In the U.S., Obama cannot operate like Stalin. Any legislation he proposes must go through a series of Congressional committees, debates and votes. In these committees, debate and votes involve officials elected by we the people. As a result, this is called Democratic socialism.

The Democratic Party including Obama are Democratic Socialists. What keeps Obama or anyone for that matter of becoming fully communist or socialist is the United States Constitution, which can only be altered by we the people and the elected officials we send to Congress. As of November 2009, Obama has made no intention to change or alter the U.S. Constitution and if he did, we as a country would not let him.

I do not remember any time in the past 19 years in which liberals made a whole-hearted attempt to change the U.S. Constitution. Just this decade, George W. Bush attempted to have the U.S. government define what marriage is through a constitutional amendment. That is the only proposed change to the constitution that went under Congressional vote we have had.

Both liberal and conservatives have done things in a series of Presidential administrations and Congressional classes, which have had their constitutional adherence debated. These debates have taken place in local, state and federal courts who determine whether something is constitutional or not. Over the years, attorneys probed into the Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. Administrations on whether the constitutionalities of certain actions were correct with Nixon and Bush Jr. being the most notable offenders.