BLOGROLL

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

We, as a nation, are standing at historic crossroads. Despite growing opposition from the American people, the Democratic majority continues their brazen efforts to jam through a 2,074-page edict before Christmas day that will impact every American life and every American business. The most disturbing part of this exercise is that it is a bill that is yet to be seen in its entirety. Major sections of this bill are nothing more than amorphous policies that continuously shape-shift behind closed doors in the Capitol in an effort to buy 60 votes.

We have all heard a lot of speeches over the past few weeks. I want to take this opportunity to lay out some cold, hard numbers about this bill and the reality we are facing as a nation for all my fellow Utahns.

Comment (0)

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

The Democratic health care proposal being debated in the Senate not only contains large new taxes, enormous government expansion and huge spending, but I'm convinced it also seeks to allow federal funding for abortion -- something 61 percent of Americans do not support, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in Human Events. -Staff

The federal government takeover of America's health care system is under way. Whatever form it finally takes, Americans need to know what is being done to them and who is responsible.

Everything the Senate or the House does has two parts, process and substance. In the Senate, for example, debate on a bill must end before there can be a vote on the bill itself. When there might be enough votes to pass a controversial bill but fewer than the 60 votes needed to end debate on it, some senators may be tempted to say they oppose the bill but still vote to end debate. When the Senate bill to take over the health care system comes up, senators cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they oppose the bill but then support the process that makes passage possible. A vote for ending debate is a vote for the bill.

Comment (1)

The following originally appeared as a letter to the editor in the Politico. -Staff

There are many very serious reasons to oppose the government takeover of America's health care system. But before debating whether Congress should take this step, we must first determine whether Congress may do so. In "Health Care Reform Is Constitutional" on Oct. 23, professor Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in POLITICO that "there is no doubt that bills passed by House and Senate committees are constitutional." That conclusion is easier to reach, as Chemerinsky did, by ignoring the most obvious constitutional problem with requiring individuals to buy health insurance.

The only conceivable power Congress may use for this individual mandate is its power to regulate interstate commerce. Chemerinsky correctly observed that the Supreme Court "has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." The most important word in that description of Supreme Court precedent is one he used but never discussed: "activities." Every Supreme Court case interpreting and applying the commerce clause, over nearly two centuries, has involved Congress's attempting to regulate what people choose to do. None of those cases involved what Congress is about to do on health care: require that people engage in an activity by purchasing a good or service whether they want to or not.

Comment (3)

The following originally appeared as a letter to the editor in the Washington Post. -Staff

Alec MacGillis's article about the details of how health-reform legislation would require Americans to purchase health insurance ignored whether the Constitution allows that requirement at all ["If you build a coverage mandate, will they come?," front page, Oct. 26].

The Supreme Court has expanded Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce itself to include "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

Comment (2)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the St. George Spectrum. -Staff

"If men were angels," James Madison once wrote, "no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." America's founders understood the nature of both human beings and the governments they create and knew that ordered liberty requires limited government. That principle is critical in the current debate over health care reform.

The Constitution both empowers and limits government in general, and the federal government in particular. Congress must have more than just a good idea or a noble intention to legislate. It must also have authority grounded in at least one of its delegated enumerated powers.

Comment (4)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in Investor's Business Daily. -Staff

The health care bills moving through Congress raise a host of contentious policy issues. But provisions in the bill before the Senate Finance Committee also test whether politics trumps the Constitution.

The liberty we enjoy in America requires limits on government power, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Our written Constitution delegates only certain powers to the federal government and Congress must point to at least one of them as authority to pass legislation.

Comment (2)

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

I have always believed one of the major purposes of health care reform is to lower the costs of medical expenses to American families. Therefore, I was dismayed when an already bad health care reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee was made worse by the addition last week of a new tax increase that would largely hit the sick and the elderly.

Comment (0)

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

The greatest opportunity offered by real health-care reform is lower costs facing Americans. At the outset of the health-care debate, members of Congress in both parties, as well as President Barack Obama, held out this promise. Unfortunately, after several months of attempted negotiations and a highly partisan prime-time speech by the president, genuine bipartisan reform has thus far failed. When it became apparent that health-care reform was going to raise the burden on American families, not lower it, I ceased participating in the Senate negotiations.

Comment (8)

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

Affordable and quality health care for every American is neither a Republican nor a Democratic issue -- it is an American issue. Unfortunately, the current health care bills before Congress are too partisan, too expensive and too big-government for most Americans to support.

As congressional Democrats inch towards going it alone on health reform, I ask them to do what American families are demanding -- step back, take a deep breath and start over on a truly bipartisan bill. Using a partisan "reconciliation" process to jam a bill that deals with one-sixth of our economy with 20 hours of Senate debate -- less than one full day -- would be one of the most irresponsible actions that the majority could take.

Comment (3)