The Other Constitutional Expert from Illinois

We're all familiar with the constitutional sage, former law professor, and current president from the law-abiding State of Illinois. But we must never forget that the former state attorney general and current junior Senator from Illinois is also a constitutional genius. Both subscribe to the "living Constitution," and both have occasional flights of fancy that fill in words that the Founding Fathers apparently simply neglected to write into the venerable document.

Recently, Senator Roland Burris (D-Friends of Barack) explained to those of us who don't properly understand the Constitution that Obamacare (as set forth in Pelosicare) is specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Naturally, having no knowledge of the Constitution myself, I am listening very carefully to Burris's explications. They are indeed both fascinating and creative. When queried by a reporter about which specific provision of the Constitution permits or authorizes the federal government to mandate that every American purchase health insurance, the lofty lawyer from the land of Lincoln replied: "It's the Section which authorizes the government to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country." Well, that explains it. All the legal treatises I have lying around the house, along with my Cato Institute handy pocket-size version have churlishly failed to print that portion of the Constitution.

Now I'm just a hick lawyer from California who has never been elected either attorney general of my state, or Senator from it, so I was sure that Burris must be right. But the reporter was unrelenting. Exasperated with the reporter's ignorance, Burris carefully explained: "Well, that's under the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country. That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country." Well said, Senator. I assume you and legal scholar Obama studied law under the same professors.

Burris's communications director later told the reporter that although the word "health" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, the senator was referring to the Preamble of the Constitution (which also doesn't include the word "health"). "The Senator's comment indicates his belief that the term 'general welfare' can be interpreted to include the health and well-being of American citizens, and health care in general." At this point, the reporter and I are both beginning to scratch our heads.

Later, Burris was pressed further by the reporter on the same issue. "Do you support Congress mandating the public, the American public to get health insurance?" Wide-eyed at the revelation contained within the question, Burris replied: "The Congress mandating the public to get health insurance?" The reporter kindly suggested that the senator read the Baucus Bill and then to notice that both the Senate and House versions have exactly such a mandate.

Burris then replied with: "We're dealing with those persons who are either not able to get employment--insurance through their employer--or who can't get insurance through, or if they're small business, they can get insurance through their small business through an option arrangement. But there wouldn't be any type of a--well, in terms of a requirement for individuals, we're hoping that everyone within--will receive insurance." Now that you've made that crystal clear, could you explain the difference between "provide for" and "mandate?"

Always the spoilsport, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) later said "I think there's a real constitutional issue there. You know, the illustration they give all the time is: Well, states require people to buy auto insurance. If they want to drive. But here would be the first time where our federal government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want." Maybe the federal government could simply mandate that nobody without insurance is allowed to get sick.

Not to be treated so cavalierly by a fellow senator, Burris said in response: "Under state law, we have everyone required to have automobile insurance. Now, think about that. And so, under this here we're providing in the legislation where everyone would be able to acquire health insurance. If they don't get it, that would--certainly they're trying to provide some type of a provision for them in case they're sick so that they will be covered and they won't be a burden on the system. So, that's the same thing proportionally to automobile insurance. I mean, it's comparable."

So, that means that states requiring automobile insurance for everyone who owns a car, or drives one is the same as requiring everyone who exists to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, and whether they are using health care services or not, or are using health care services and paying for it out of their own pockets. Now I get it. Take that, Senator Hatch!