Much fuss has been stirred up in the aftermath of the healthcare reform vote, and even before the vote, over the constitutionality of an individual mandate to get coverage.  Republicans and conservatives have taken aim at this provision and set their sites on bringing down healthcare because of it.  Many believe that the government "forcing" people to buy healthcare coverage is unconstitutional.  I am not a big fan of the mandate, but I understand the rationale that went along with it when it was decided upon to be included in the bill.  Constitutionality determinations are best left to the professionals themselves who study Constitutional law.  An interesting Politico story opened my eyes to the whole situation.  

Erwin Chemerinsky specializes in American Constitutional Law and has boosted himself right into the healthcare debate that now ensues.  His recent Politico piece will have some thinking a little harder about Constitutionality.

Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of course, much to debate about how to best reform America’s health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed by House and Senate committees are constitutional.

I'm much more inclined to believe someone who studies Constitutional Law at Harvard than a yahoo toting a gun and screaming socialism at the top of their lungs, but lets read on and see just what Chemerinsky means by this.

Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, “substantial effect” can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce.

He cites Article I section 8 of the Constitution, and more specifically Clause 1 stating that:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"  

The gray area (gray? grey?) is where does laying/collecting taxation etc. stand in regards to our current bill?  The mandate must stay within the lines of taxation and spending powers that the government has.  According to Chemerinsky, the "mandate" does just that.  

Just some food for thought.

For the article in its entirety, check out this link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html

Thanks to New Hampshire blogger Dean Barker I learned something new today about Senator Judd Gregg. According to the Associated Press,

President Barack Obama's former nominee to become commerce secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg, steered taxpayer money to his home state's redevelopment of a former Air Force base even as he and his brother engaged in real estate deals there, an Associated Press investigation found.

Gregg, R-N.H., personally has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Cyrus Gregg's office projects at the Pease International Tradeport, a Portsmouth business park built at the defunct Pease Air Force Base, once home to nuclear bombers. Judd Gregg has collected at least $240,017 to $651,801 from his investments there, Senate records show, while helping arrange at least $66 million in federal aid for the former base.

Sadly, this isn't unprecedented or even the most egregious example of members of Congress profiting from earmarks. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert sold real estate for nearly $2 million in profits after he secured federal earmarks to construct the Prairie Parkway near land he owned.

What looks corrupt in politics turns out to be legal more often than not, and that seems to be the case here. The AP says Senate ethics rules do not permit senators to direct earmarks to projects "solely" in order to benefit themselves or their family members financially, but of course Gregg could point to all kinds of benefits from redeveloping the former base.

"I am absolutely sure that in every way I've complied with the ethics rules of the Senate both literally and in their spirit relative to any investment that I've made anywhere," Gregg told the AP. "These earmarks do not benefit me in any way, shape, manner financially, personally or in any other manner other than the fact that I'm a citizen of New Hampshire."

Still, one wonders whether this story prompted Gregg to withdraw his nomination for Commerce Secretary. Whatever his reasons, we're better off without him.

Members of Congress should stick to the usual form of legalized corruption and only seek earmarks that would personally profit their large campaign contributors.

No one raises ethical concerns about that behavior. As a bonus, donors who stand to gain from the earmarks may go the extra mile during the incumbent's next tough campaign.

There's more...

Breaking, from NBC News:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact," he said Sunday in a report by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. "But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."

He said he plans to continue in his role as governor. "I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country."

So much for no drama.

Update [2009-1-4 14:57:45 by Todd Beeton]:President-elect Obama's statement (via e-mail):

It is with deep regret that I accept Governor Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his name for nomination as the next Secretary of Commerce.Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office. It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time. Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.

There's more...

I have been an advocate of Richardson, for Secretary of State - for quite some time. But given the economic situation - is Bill actually better suited for Secretary of Commerce?

What do you think?

There's more...

That is, Henry Waxman is the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  No details yet.

See what kind of headline you can come up with.

There's more...