Hypocritical Oath: Does Mitt Romney Hate the Constitution?
You'll never hear me call Mitt Romney a hypocrite when it comes to political issues. To be a hypocrite, you have to believe in something. Aside from his faith, which I have no doubt is quite sincere, the former governor's only conviction seems to be saying whatever it takes to get himself elected.
This trait is most clearly displayed when Candidate Romney talks about the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare to its detractors), which puts him in the uncomfortable position of explaining the healthcare law that Governor Romney enacted in Massachusetts. What's troubling is not so much his attempts to split hairs about why the law was appropriate on a state level but not on a federal level but rather his claims about how he'd deal with the law if elected president.
Romney has promised that one of his first acts as president will be to issue waivers for all 50 states that he pretends will put the law's effects on hold while he and (a presumably GOP controlled) congress repeal it. To his credit, and I’m sure many peoples’ surprise, Romney has been quite consistent on this point throughout the current campaign. What is not a surprise is that the promise is about as inconsequential as it is contemptuous of the values he professes to hold.
What makes the promise meaningless except perhaps on a symbolic level) is the fact that these so-called “state innovation waivers” require the states to meet very specific requirements before opting out of the national law. Ironically, the only state that can be reasonably sure of meeting those requirements when January 2013 rolls around is Massachusetts. That doesn't even factor in that, in the law’s current form, the waivers don’t apply until 2017. Even if a bipartisan amendment supported by President Obama (i.e. the man who’s willing to get his hands dirty and work with people to get something good done) takes effect, the waivers would still be deferred until 2014. In short, whether the election has a good outcome or Romney gets elected, the next presidential term starts some months before the much feted waivers could take effect.
That bit of mendacity aside, the way Romney talks about the process is even more telling about the candidate's lack of conviction, let alone credibility. With one breath, he boasts about how he “would respect the different branches of government if [he was] fortunate enough to become president." He then turns aorund to “reserve the right as president to put in place executive orders”, specifically pointing to using that power to put the healthcare reform law on hold.
Whether the Affordable Care Act was passed with bipartisan support or strictly along party lines is irrelevant. Whatever its flaws, it's a legitimately enacted law that was passed by both houses of Congress. A president who truly respects “the different branches of government” should think twice before undercutting the authority of Congress. Voters who want a president that truly respects the US Constitution and the separation of powers inherent in that document should think twice about voting for Mitt Romney.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Con Chapman
potterpoliticalpickle
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
Enter Mitt Romney, recognizing his constitutional limitations he has very few options at his disposal to rid our nation of this terrible bill. Obviously he could flat out repeal the bill but that would require 60 votes in the Senate, which is unlikely to happen. Assuming State waivers don’t violate the Constitution that seems like a reasonable solution. Should those waivers be deemed Supreme Court material, I imagine lawyers will bring their own cases to the lower courts.
At the end of the day, we have a sitting President calling for a Christmas Eve vote on a 2,700 page bill made into law via the reconciliation process and now actively being challenged by numerous Supreme Court cases versus your assumption that Romney will violate the Constitution. As it relates to who "hates" the Constitution, perhaps you meant to say “Obummer”?
I, for one, am getting really sick and tired of people accusing the sitting President of treason. If the actions being taken were, in fact, treasonous, then something would be done to stop them. As long as they stay within the confines of the law they're in the clear. And as long as our political system stays the way it is, they will, always, be inside the law because the laws will always be changed to allow the actions being taken.
Call me, Cynical
“This trait (of saying whatever it takes to get elected) is most clearly displayed when Candidate Romney talks about the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare to its detractors), which puts him in the uncomfortable position of explaining the healthcare law that Governor Romney enacted in Massachusetts.”
With respect to “explaining” Romneycare, perhaps you fail to understand that what might not be allowed to the national government may be absolutely legal as legislation in Massachusetts. This is the nature of the federal relationship between our national government and the States.
The power and authority of the national government is limited to those expressed, or clearly implied, in the Constitution. Almost all other power and authority is vested in the States or the people. There is no clearer statement of this than in the Tenth Amendment.
Thus, if residents of Massachusetts wish to impose a mandate upon themselves to purchase health insurance, or to eat broccoli, it’s probably legal. However, such mandates are likely unconstitutional at the national level.
There is no hypocrisy on Romney’s part here. There is no internal contradiction in what he says. On this topic, he’s not in a position of having to justify falsely Romneycare while rejecting Obamacare.
He has clearly stated that on his first day in office he will advocate for the repeal of Obamacare. There is no duplicity in that statement, especially if it’s predicated upon a belief that all, or part, of Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Perhaps he makes, or fails to explain, his comments on Obamacare and Romneycare based on a belief that his audience understands federalism. Of course, this observation might beg the question whether many Americans were informed enough to understand what Mitt says.
The state waivers exempt states from the mechanics of the ACA as long as they---can met the same coverage/price standards. This is what scares the Republicans the most, because their nostrums and platitudes will never result in better or cheaper h-care service. Incompetents tend to run from things that will prove incompetency.
If the Insurance Mandate in constitutional question had been passed under Bush by the GOP on a party line vote and ran through reconciliation (which is not unusual), both Johnny Fever and Chris would be arguing it as a fine example of personal responsibility. Chris, because he seldom comments without mentioning the word, would affirm it as a blow against socialism.
Chris,
While Romney hypocritically making a federalism argument is acceptable, as such an argument can be made, it is just an argument. It's the hypocrisy that's the interesting part and in your and Fever's case, typical.
Fun With Chris, who claims:
"The power and authority of the national government is limited to those expressed, or clearly implied, in the Constitution. Almost all other power and authority is vested in the States or the people. There is no clearer statement of this than in the Tenth Amendment."
The power of Congress is limited by the Constitution, period. "Expressed" is what is written. "Clearly implied" is a meaningless redundancy--your specialty. "Clearly" adds nothing to the meaning of "implied."
More to the point, Congress' powers are both specific, general and in many cases plenary. Even in the specifics, general powers must be applied. For example: To provide and maintain a navy;--is specific. How that is accomplished is general. Thus Necessary and Proper comes into play, it also a general, non-specific clause and power.
The funny thing about your 10th amendment claim is that when Congress was debating it, they rejected the idea of inserting "expressly" in the clause.
Thus it does not read as :
The powers not *expressly* delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
It was Madison who rose to reject the idea of "express" powers, arguing, reasonably and successfully, that governments must have general powers in order to function. This sentiment also has ample representation in the Constitutional Convention.
So, Chris, you really didn't say anything significant, as you cannot show that the ACA is unconstitutional by any constitutional means, expressed or "clearly implied." If we took your ambiguous claim to conclusion, the powers of Congress would be what you think they should be. That's not an argument, it's a bodily expulsion burdened with circumlocution and irrelevancy.
Knowing what Federalism means is no great accomplishment. It's a question of which entity's power in what case. The 10th does nothing to change that question, nor does it clarify any specific issue. Why you spent words "implying" --as you proved nothing -- you were "informed" about Federalism is part of the Chris mystique.
Also, and because you're a weak-argument Tenther, I am compelled to ask if you realize each state sends people to represent them in Congress? You guys always make it sound like the Big Feds are pushing around the poor, powerless states.
That aside, could you extract a single insightful point from your comment--right, wrong or indifferent--and show us what it is?
“The issue has never been that Obamacare is unconstitutional. If it was that easy, somebody would point at the clause that prohibits it. The issue became "should it be constitutional," though most scholars, etc, agreed that it is. Why? Because it is *until* a new constitutional standard is invented. This is about jurisprudence and the Court's power, not a specific line in the document. “
This is hilarious. I can just see it now.
PJOR, in a passion unique to him, defeats all security barriers and bursts into the conference at the Supreme Court where the Nine are seated. The justices are taking their turns at rendering their opinions of the answers to the constitutional questions regarding Obamacare debated before them at the end of March.
Our intrepid Liberal and self-proclaimed constitutional scholar yells,
“Halt!"
"You all KNOW that you all should NOT be deciding WHETHER Obamacare is unconstitutional! In fact, you all should be deciding WHETHER Obamacare SHOULD BE unconstitutional!”
Kagan: “WTF? Who in the hell are you?”
PJOR: “I am a constitutional scholar much brighter than anyone in this room!!!”
Alito: “Ohhhhhhh, I know this jackass. That’s the guy from OS whose interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is, and I quote, ‘[If] It isn't in the Constitution, . . . it doesn't disallow it.’ I presume security is on its way?”
Roberts: “What’s the number for security?”
Ginsburg: (to PJOR) “Are you claiming that, if it isn’t disallowed by the Constitution that the national government has the authority to exercise power?”
PJOR: “Yes!!! I KNEW that YOU would understand, Ruth . . ..
Ginsburg: “Don’t call me Ruth. . .. “
PJOR: “OK, bitch . . . .. The truth is that you CAN”T find where Obamacare is prohibited by the constitution; therefore, it’s CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!”
Kennedy: “You mean we can invent a new constitutional standard whenever we like?”
PJOR: “EXACTLY!!!!! Yahooo! I got the swing . . . .. “
[The rest of PJOR’s comment was drowned in the buzz from a Taser and the subsequent thud as 300-pound security guard, Bill Perry, tackled him to the floor.]
Scalia: “Nice tackle, Fridge! You should have played for Notre Dame!”
Breyer: “I have to go to the restroom. Call me in my office when you all get this mess cleaned up.”
You once again show yourself to be the insipid twit we all know and love.
The ACA enters the Court with the presumption of constitutionality. Nobody in the chamber is pointing at a clause in the Constitution that says it isn't. You seem to think that was the focus of the arguments and go to great length to make a jackass of yourself. If the Court rules the mandate unconstitutional, it will be because they created a new standard. If not, oh inexcusably pompous one, please point to the existing standard. (Hint to the clueless: The existing standards would uphold the mandate.)
An effective and relevant rebuttal would involve far fewer poor attempts at sarcasm and a displays of deep ignorance. All you need to do to meet your own standard is point at the clause that denies Congress that power. You can't because it isn't there, meaning you just spent some time proving your argument is invalid. Was the lame attempt at "humor" supposed to hide that?
You shoot-off your mouth and hit both of your feet. I had better quit correcting you or you'll need a prosthetic or a Hum Around.
I could whip you all day on this, but the conclusion wouldn't change. You don't know Shi'ite from Shinola about the Constitution or the 10th. You're simply an idiot. If you reject that label, just point at the clause in the Constitution upon which your (asinine) argument revolves.
------------
Overall, I don't get the Mitt hates the Constitution thing, but his position on Obamacare is pure bold-faced hypocrisy.
Instead of flopping like a fish and a really bad one-show-career-ending lounge comedian, explain the hows and whys--the mechanics, if you will, of your implied claim that what isn't disallowed is not necessarily allowed. Show us all the standard for the not dis-allowed dis-allowable.
Enlighten us, oh pompous one. I say what isn't limited is allowed. Show me where it says what's allowed is dis-allowable. Though the question you prompt is a blatant contradictory absurdity to a sentient human, we'd all love seeing you tie yourself into knots trying to explain below that what you insist above is true.
C'mon, Chrissie. You like imagining you're capable of such reason and logic. You fantasize about knowing enough about the document to "educate" others. So far I haven't seen any educatin' goin' on, just the laughable threat to unleash it upon me...someday...somehow...somewhere.
Instead of braying like a jackass, try proving it. Show us the allowable-but-dis-allowed power!
(this is almost too easy....)
Are you OK?
You are at your incoherent best when your emotions overtake your reasoning enough to generate two replies to my one rebuke. However, let’s not make this about us and further ruin this post.
I will simply post the text of the Tenth Amendment and let Spake’s reputation and EP attract those who can best determine what the federal relationship between our national government and those of the States should be.
TENTH AMENDMENT
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
You're a ball of incoherent flatulence.
As far as how the Affordable Care Act worked its way through Congress, pretty much everything you said inspires a resounding refrain of, "So, what's your point?" Neither a party line vote nor the use of the reconciliation process (or even a Christmas Eve vote in the Senate) reflects on the constitutionality of a law or the President's duty to ensure that said law is "faithfully executed".