BLOGROLL

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Ed Meese and Steven Calabresi in the Chicago Tribune. -Staff

Parents across America tell their kids that what matters is how you play the game, not whether you win or lose. Ordinary Americans know that the ends do not justify the means, that playing by the rules is more important than simply getting your way. We would be much better off if America's political leaders were more like America's parents.

Most Americans reject the "by-any-means-necessary" tactics by which the controversial health care bill was pushed through Congress. President Barack Obama once promised transparency and accountability, but in the end he didn't worry about procedural rules.

Not caring how the legislative game is played means ignoring the rules imposed by the Constitution, the document that the president and every member of Congress swore an oath to support and defend. There had to be a public outcry before House Democrats obeyed the Constitution and allowed the House to vote on the Senate bill before sending it to the president. The Constitution sets limits on government, which is to say that the Constitution is not about picking winners and losers but about the very procedural rules that Washington liberals are telling us to stop worrying about.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the National Review. -Staff

Faced with plummeting public support, the White House is engaged in a scorched-earth PR campaign to justify its failure to listen to the majority of the American people who oppose this $2.5 trillion health-care bill. They've even started attacking my opposition to the unconstitutional federal individual mandate citing legislation that was introduced as an alternative to Hillarycare back in the 1990s.

To be clear, I supported this alternative to President Clinton's massive federal takeover of the American health-care system, because my number-one priority was the defeat of yet another big-government assault on health care that the people of Utah overwhelmingly opposed. It's that simple.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed on FoxNews.com. -Staff

In a mad rush to pass a health care reform plan leading House Democrats now intend to take up the Senate-passed version of the bill, arguing that the Senate language prohibits federal funding of abortion. Besides that fact that this simply not true, it also demonstrates the lengths the president and his allies will take to pass this bill against the will of the American people.

For almost 35 years, the law of the land has been an explicit prohibition against federal taxpayer dollars being used to pay for elective abortions, known as the Hyde amendment, after the late great Illinois congressman. This is a policy supported by the majority of the American people.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Washington Post. -Staff

America's Founders gave us a system of governance designed to limit government power and maximize liberty. The legislative branch is different from the executive, and the Senate is different from the House. No single branch has all the power. That can be frustrating for those with ambitious agendas, but everyone benefits by respecting those checks and balances even as we fight over policies.

While the House is designed for action, the Senate is designed for deliberation. That is why Senate rules and procedures give a minority of senators the power to slow or even stop legislation. Both parties do it when in the minority, and both find it frustrating when they are in the majority. But such checks are central to the nature of the institution and to the Senate's place in our constitutional system. These rules temper majority power and generate strong incentives to develop mainstream legislation that commands broad, bipartisan support.

To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition, President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the "reconciliation" process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can't afford. This is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.

Comment (10)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Staff

Health care reform is a critical national issue that must transcend political labels and parties. It should be guided by the voices of the American people, who expect Congress to work together to solve this challenge in an open, bipartisan and fiscally prudent manner. If we take a realistic approach, we can achieve responsible health care reform that enjoys support on both sides of the aisle.

Americans want health care reform that reduces costs and provides affordable access. But they also worry about preserving their current quality of care, improving a struggling economy and reducing the nation's debt. Amid this uncertainty, Congress should be careful about doing too much, too fast and risking mistakes that cannot be undone.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in USA Today. -Staff

Obama's big-government proposal attempts to do too much, too fast.

Americans want health care reform that reduces costs and provides affordable access. But they also worry about preserving quality, improving a struggling economy and reducing the nation's unsustainable debt. Amid this uncertainty, we should be careful not to do too much too fast, risking mistakes of lasting consequence.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the National Review. -Staff

Tomorrow night, President Obama will head to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union address to the nation. While it is sure to include the rhetorical flourishes and impeccable delivery that President Obama is renowned for, I fear it will unfortunately be dominated by populist rhetoric instead of the actual policies the administration is pushing behind closed doors -- away from the scrutiny of the American people. Health care is a prime example.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Mark Shurtleff in the LA Times. -Staff

Congress is ignoring the Constitution by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance and ordering states to establish health benefit exchanges to run the new federal healthcare system.

The House and Senate have passed their respective versions of the legislation to take over the healthcare system, and a common bill is being hammered out, once again behind closed doors. The essential elements that we know will be in the final product are bad policy for America and, perhaps worse, a threat to liberty itself. The courts may have to enforce the constitutional boundaries that Congress has ignored.

Comment (1)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Mark Shurtleff in the Salt Lake Tribune. -Staff

The legislation being crafted in Washington to take over the health care system is not only bad policy for Utah and America but a threat to liberty itself. It undermines the rights of both individual Americans and states. We will work together, fighting on both political and legal fronts, to prevent this big-government plan from unconstitutionally expanding federal power and control over all of us.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with J. Kenneth Blackwell and Kenneth A. Klukowski in the Wall Street Journal. -Staff

President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

Comment (1)