Editor,
In the health care debate, one opinion that has been given quite often, without much expansion, is this idea that the health care bills Congress is considering are unconstitutional. The argument seems to go something like this: “The Constitution does not guarantee universal health care, ergo any attempts for the United States government to provide universal health care are unconstitutional.”
Of course, the problem with this argument lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States …” as well as having the power “to regulate commerce … among the several states ….”
The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that this grant of power is quite wide, and extends to government programs such as Medicare and Social Security (two programs that are certainly not specifically guaranteed under the Constitution, yet exist). Of course, this doesn’t really get to the heart of the problem. Too many people seem to come to the conclusion that something they perceive to be bad policy must be unconstitutional (not just in the health care debate but in other venues as well), but the problem is that the Constitution, generally speaking, doesn’t address policy. It addresses powers held by the national government, and rights guaranteed to the people of the United States. Like it or not, the Congress (and by extension, the government at large) has extremely wide-reaching powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and that includes the issue of health care. If people don’t like that Congress has that power, I suggest working on getting a Constitutional amendment passed to remove it. In the meantime, the arguments against the health care bill should be argued in terms of policy, not constitutionality.
Elliot Kaufman
UNM student
