Every line of thought moves toward a logical conclusion.
But few ever carry their thinking far enough to grasp the ultimate ramifications of their ideas. In a recent radio interview, Congressman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) inadvertently walked right up to the edge of the cliff waiting for those who hold to the progressive notion of a “living breathing” Constitution.
Yarmuth appeared on Mandy Connell’s show on WHAS in Louisville the morning of Aug. 27. During a discussion on the federal health care bill, Connell asked Yarmuth where he believes Congress gets the authority to require every American to purchase health insurance.
Predictably, Yarmuth appealed to the commerce clause.
So Connell asked the logical follow-up question: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate citizens to buy a product?
In a candid moment, Yarmuth provided a revealing answer.
“It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do.”
Wow.
Then the Democrat from Louisville tried to backtrack.
“I hope I wasn’t endorsing the idea of no limits on it.”
I hope so too.
But as a supporter of the recently passed health care legislation, Yarmuth clearly embraces a broad enough interpretation of the Constitution to assert that the government possesses the power to require Americans to buy something. And whether he realizes it or not, his elastic view of constitutional authority just ran him smack-dab into a very frightening truth. If the Constitution doesn’t mean what it means, it means nothing at all.
And the federal government has sweeping power – over everything.
Also known as tyranny.
Contrast Yarmuth’s understanding of federal power to James Madison’s.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
The framers granted power to regulate interstate commerce simply to prevent states from charging import and export duties on products brought in from and shipped to other states. Courts have bastardized that authority, changing it into something far removed from the intent of the Constitution’s framers.
And if the Constitution doesn’t mean what it means, it means nothing at all.
If the principles upon which the founders based our Constitution do not inform the meaning of its words, and the opinion of this or that judge defines the limits of the federal power, or lack thereof, then Yarmuth is right – the federal government can do to you whatever it wants.
Whenever it wants.
However it wants.
It was fun listening to Yarmuth fumble and backtrack after he made his initial statement, because I think in that moment, even the progressive congressman from Louisville realized what a dangerous ledge he was treading on.
Perhaps it’s time we back away from that cliff.
Note: You can listen to the conversation here. The relevant comments start at about the 16 minute mark.
Michael Maharrey is the state chapter coordinator for the Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center
Great article and good reporting. I will get this out to as many people in my sphere and tell others to do the same.
Yarmuth knew exactly what he was saying. He's single payer on healthcare, cap and trade tax, card check, supports "fairness" doctrine, believes in the Fair Elections Act and voted for it. What part of totalitarian can't he spell?
In other words, Yarmuth does exactly what Pelosi says he should do–which he also believes because, as you said, he is a progressive. Before we back away from the cliff, we need to give him a firm push–in November!
Did he recognize the ledge, or did he realize he'd given away the end game??
[...] conversation on recent comments by Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Louisville) regarding the scope of federal power allowed by the commerce clause reveals the temptation to [...]