Sebelius, Gowdy, Nuance and the HHS Mandate – UPDATED

I found the video astonishing, even given what I already think about Sibelius and this whole mess. There’s a real problem with giving this kind of power to anyone and any agency, to begin with. But she does seem breathtakingly ignorant of the Constitution; in fact, she sounded both arrogant and stupid. “Separation of church and state”–really? What on earth is happening in this government right now?

Take a look at the youtube video wherein Sen. Ron Johnson questions Sec. Sebelius about the costs of the Affordable Care Act. She is frighteningly clueless.

It’s not just about that. Congress has given sweeping discretionary powers, seemingly all over the place. My slight familiarity is with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). If you read the law, there’s not a lot there except that HHS has a lot of interpretation, establishment of rules, and extension of powers to play with. What was started, we’re told, as some way to carry your health care coverage between jobs, and a way to get access to one’s own medical records, has expanded into a mess of rules one wouldn’t recognize from the wording of the law. And along with that, there’s a number of civil and criminal penalties to go along with them.

Congress isn’t writing laws (no matter how many pages) so much as providing the executive departments a method to do whatever they want.

Sad.

I was not surprised by her testimony at all. Judging from her past, this is exactly what I expected from her. She of course appears to be incompetent and she probably is; however, most importantly, she is a left wing radical. The constitution does not matter to her. Congress is to blame for this because they wrote and passed a bill that turned over 1/3 of our economy to the Secretary of HHS–someone who was not elected.

The first Revolution was fought on the precept of Taxation without Representation and the recent Tea Party movement articulates that idea at a fundamental level. However, taxation is not the root of our rot; it’s unabridged power. I believe the second Revolution will be based on the precept of Legislation without Representation. I use the term Legislation loosely.

Of course he’s avoiding Congress again; he’s made it virtually obsolete. Who needs Congress? Certainly not him. Between trying to force the church to relinquish its First Amendment rights and passing the NDAA, he’s destroyed the entire Bill of Rights. We’re living in a police state.

He’s a dictator. Isn’t anyone paying attention?

The Secretary is on solid ground. It is the Bishops’ arguments on the health care law that have gone from wrong to ridiculous.

First, the Constitution. Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g., http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html)

When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions for conscientious objectors.

The real question here then is not so much whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.

Second, no need for an exemption. While the Bishops may well oppose the law’s policy of promoting the availability of medical services they find objectionable, the law does not put employers in the moral bind they suppose. Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. Solved–unless an employer really aims not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather to control his employees’ health plan choices so they conform to the employer’s religious beliefs, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer need an exemption from the law.

Indeed, some continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.

In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.

Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They counter what they call the government’s “accounting gimmick” with one of their own: “Catholic dollars.” These dollars, it seems, can only be used to pay for things conforming to an employer’s religious beliefs even after the employer spends them and they thus become the property of others, e.g., insurers or employees.

I can only wonder what the Bishops would think of their tag-the-dollar idea if they realized that I have loosed some “atheist dollars” into society, some of which have found their way into the Bishops’ wallets. Those dollars can be used only for ungodly purposes, lest I suffer the indignity of paying for things I disbelieve. If one lands in your hands, whatever you do, for god’s sake, don’t put it in the collection plate.

After three years of watching the great deceiver and his minions operate none of us should be shocked at any of this madness. If you need to read the texts/ manuscripts of the hearing you’re kind of like St. Thomas was after the Resurrection. If anyone can’t see the pure evil emanating from this administration by now, God save us. Sebelius’s credentials need no further scrutiny, she was protetecting Tiller the baby killer when she was gov of Kansas. We all need to wake up and smell the coffee, Ms. Scalia. The evil ones legions are in our midst and we must not be in denial.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obama_2001_scrap_the_constitut.html

This is a 2008 pre-election article discussing the 2001 Obama interview in which he talks about his views of the Constitution. At the time you could also hear his own words on a youtube video–but now that is conveniently no longer available. At least the article talks about and quotes some of his more “interesting” and disturbing views.
I heard the interview several years ago when it was still available–so I heard him say that he does not like the Constitution as written. That explains his governing(?) attitude. Swearing to uphold the Constitution just seems to be a minor detail.
This horrible healthcare bill was written and passed by a Democrat House, Democrat Senate and a Democrat President to be implemented by a Democrat HHS Secretary who is apparently “just follwoing orders”.
If Obama is re-elected and they keep the majority in the Senate, they will be able to pack the Supreme Court with like minded(pro abortion) Justices. That would insure that a lot of lawsuits against this bill would be decided Obama’s way. We already know that a couple of the more liberal Justices think that the Supreme Court should sometimes look at foreign law when deciding cases. Where is that in the Constitution?

Off-topic. I keep looking at that photo of Sebelius and Obama. I’m no radical feminist, I assure you. But his hand on her arm steering her looks really patronizing and controlling. I’ve seen him do similar things w/other women in his administration. He seems very patronizing and condescending toward women. I wonder how those hard-core feminists can stand it. Why is he touching her at all? A boss shouldn’t do that to his female staff, especially a female who is also in an executive position. It diminishes her. O knows how to diminish those around him.

I could go on about how I recall him being patronizing toward women and Hilary during 2008. I also thought he was insulting in his joke last night about Hilary “drunk texting” in Columbia–not that she should have let herself be photographed in that undignified state.

And this is the man delivering the utopia of free abortion and birth control to the feminists…I guess the feminists have to suck it up to get what they want.

The discretionary authority to the Sec of HHS pales in comparison to another insidious element of the ACA. It is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB ). It’s another one of those hidden little clauses in the 2700 page bill that Speaker Pelosi said we did have to read because you know we can trust the government. If you don’t know what it is, you really should google it. In short it is a 15 member panel APPOINTED by the POTUS who will decide what programs and services to stop paying for if Medicare grows at a percentage deemed to large. No one will oversee this panel and their recommendations become law unless Congress overrides and comes up with a different plan. So once again, under this law, unprecedented power is being given to unelected individuals who are beholden only to the POTUS. Essentially in both the Sebelius case and this IPAB case, Congress which is supposed to control the purse is allowed to abdicate ther responsibility. In doing so, they are also failing to fulfill their responsibilities to their constituents, the taxpayers.

“Constitution?!!… WE don’t need no steenking Constitution!!!”

What I can`t seem to understand, is the logic behind the USCCB who with Card. Dolan and company produces a letter from all the bishops to be read at all the Masses to unite Catholics against the Obama Adminst. in the fight against the HHS mandate, and then along comes Archbishop Gomez with Card Mahony and the USCCB and files a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Obama Admin. in the lawsuit against Arizona. Now that ought to unite Catholics. Stroke of genius, that is.

[Because Catholicism is not about being Republicans or Democrats and lining up on their issues - admin]

I love that the audience here is so good at ignoring trolls. Over at a fellow Patheos blog (ahem! Bad Catholic! ahem!) the youthful earnest types just can’t help but getting sucked into looong exchanges with the manipulative troll types that have been also plaguing NCR lately. It’s sad.

Honestly, Sibelius sounds like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about—and doesn’t know anything about the Constitution, or law.

The trolls will, of course, come out from under their respective rocks, to try and bully us into submission on issues like this. It’s what they do. What we can do, is ignore them.

Elizabeth, I think you missed something here, vis-a-vis the President and Constitutional law. You’re are perfectly correct to say that he knows this measure is unconstitutional.

He doesn’t care.

A friend of mine, a graduate of Yale Law, told me it has been decades since many people cared. Seven or eight decades, actually, since most lawyers considered the Constitution to be a written law, rather than a “living document” subject to interpretation as required by the agenda of the hour.

Moreover, if he is not a Maoist in social-economic policy, our President is certainly a Maoist when it comes to linguistic policy. “Words are like little sticks of dynamite in people’s minds,” the Chairman said. They don’t *mean* things; they *accomplish* things. On what other basis could a “constitutional law scholar” possibly say in front of the nation that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to invalidate legislation? He knew it false, if he knows true from false. More to the point, he didn’t care. He had a good soundbite, a good rallying cry.

I believe I am the “troll” being referenced, but I am just making the point that Chesterton made in THE APPETITE OF TYRANNY. Unless you are what he called a “positive barbarian”, then you must acknowledge that the same standards must be applied to you and your side as to the other guy and his side. That means that if it is repulsive to every good citizen for a president to blatantly ignore the Constitution, it doesn’t matter if that president is a Republican or a Democrat, or if his name is Obama or Bush.

However, very few of these Catholic blogs attacked Bush for his violations of the Constitution; they were more inclined to defend him. Mark Shea was a prominent, but almost solitary, exception. As a result, appealing to the Constitution is not going to work as a political strategy. The Constitution can’t be an obsolete document incapable of foreseeing the complexities of life in the 21st century one day, and the basis for our most fundamental freedoms the next. Tu quoque *is* a logical fallacy, but it’s more than sufficient to carry the day in a political debate.

Rather than appealing to the Constitution, then, we should instead concentrate on the Natural Law and on the inherent wrongness of contraception, abortion, and sterilization for everyone. That will be a harder sell, because people don’t want to hear it, but the Catholic Church has an obligation to tell this truth anyhow. Far from being a “distraction”, this is the only real option we have at this point.

[Conversely, of course, those vociferous critics of Bush's policies have been silent as Obama embraced them and have little-to-nothing to say about this instance. You are correct that Mark Shea was a solid voice against Bush's excesses. Some of us were uncomfortable with them by stymied by 9/11 and the aftermath. Evolution is possible, though and some, like myself, did move away from fully-supporting Bush's excesses near the end of his term. Natural law is a harder sell, you're right, but I do not think appeals to the constitution should yet be abandoned. -admin]

Re: The idea that it’s too late to demand constitutionality.

If not now, when? Is it ever too late to walk away from sin and start living right? Is it ever to late for a prostitute or murderer to repent and turn away from sin? We are just to throw up our hands and let things go? Concede to chaos, lawlessness? The tea party was a response W Bush excesses in spending and war as much as a fear of what Obama would do–which has come to fruition.

As for the law giving much discretion to HHS, this is generally the trend in both federal and state laws. The idea is that experts at executive agencies can engage in evidentiary proceedings, solicit technical information and make policies that make, economic, scientific and legal sense, etc. Legislatures move too slowly to change details in laws. So, some of this passing off of discretion might be reasonable. But, yes, this law (and many others) goes way beyond what is prudent. The legislatures should provide stricter parameters as to the administrative flexibility of the executive branch agencies implementing the laws. Obama-care is probably the worst offender of such legislation with the worst consequences for our fiscal condition and liberty for citizens–as we already see.

Just so. It is important to remember that *habeas corpus* was ignored in the case of Jose Padilla, a natural-born American citizen – while Obama may or may not be the first President to order the assassinations of US citizens, it can hardly be said that he is the first to trample our Constitution and the ancient liberties it is intended to protect and promote.

The thing is. . . Obama’s the guy in the White House, now; he’s the president. The buck supposedly stops with him, now. Hashing, and re-hashing, over what past presidents did, and didn’t do, is irrelevant.

We can’t change the past, we can only keep an eye on the present. and Obama has gotten a pass on a lot of the same things the Left called Bush on. (Not to mention he’s gotten a pass on Solyndra, running up a trillion-plus debt, alienating our allies, declaring war without congress’ approval, etc)

In some sense what you say is true, but it is poor persuasion. It’s like complaining about steroids in sports while wearing a Bary Bonds jersey; however logical and correct your arguments against steroids may be, no one will take them seriously coming from a fan of perhaps the biggest steroid abuser in baseball — and one who got away with it (never was caught by MLB).

Look, it’s NOT ENOUGH to be logical and correct. If the Catholic position is not also PERSUASIVE, the contraceptives mandate stays in place and the bishops will be that much more reluctant to challenge Obama on his next move. (My guess is a push for nationwide acceptance of “gay marriage” being his next move, probably starting with recognition from all federal agencies.)

So… Mr. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar?

I think that the Character “Scotty” from Star Trek said it best:

“Yeah… and if my Grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.”