Judge Napolitano took another “Anti Ron Paul” to task over support of government health care. In fact, Judge Napolitano asked the one question we Constitutionalists have wanted to ask all of the health reform supporters in Congress. Is government health care Constitutional? We all know how Ron Paul and many free market supporters answer that question. How does an “Anti Ron Paul” justify the opposing answer?
The Judge’s target was House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC). In a 13 minute plus interview Clyburn said some rather telling but unsurprising things. I’ve included the entire interview audio below. I don’t want to be attacked for taking his words out of context. If you’d like to only hear the Constitutional question portion then jump to 5:00 in the audio at the bottom of the article.
First the discussion is about Clyburn’s idea to have a 3 year “test” period for health reform. The Judge chimes in and correctly surmises that it’s just a slower path to the public option. During Clyburn’s next remarks he mixes up the meaning of words. He says the following:
“So what is a fact to me, may not be a fact to you. So what kind of independent facts can we develop?“
Ridiculous. This is the 3rd ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. He doesn’t know the difference between “fact” and “opinion”.
The Judge then pops the question: “Where in the Constitution is the federal government charged with maintaining people’s health?”
Clyburn’s answer: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”
The Judge charges back a bit later: “You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You can’t go outside the Constitution because you think it is a good thing to do without violating that oath!”
Clyburn replies: “How about show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
The Judge then, of course, cites the 10th Amendment. Listen to the entire audio below to hear Clyburn’s sad and predictable follow-up.
This is the fundamental argument of our time and sadly it isn’t being argued enough. This is evidenced by The Judge’s co-host changing the subject following the exchange. Clyburn is now on record as violating his oath willingly. At least now we don’t have to rely on his litany of unconstitutional votes alone. It is unlikely he’ll lose his seat given the district he is in, but he certainly deserves to be voted out of office along with many others who willingly violate their oath of office on an almost daily basis.