Well That Settles It! Zeke Emanuel on 'Morning Joe': 'No Credible' Scholar Doubts ObamaCare's Constitutional
On Thursday’s edition of Morning Joe, Zeke Emanuel, former health policy advisor for President Obama, completely distorted and misrepresented the controversy surrounding ObamaCare, and found no pushback from the Brew Crew, naturally.
Emanuel started out the segment making the ridiculous claim that no "credible legal scholar" would doubt the constitutionality of the individual mandate in ObamaCare. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
In doing so, Emanuel dismissed the judicial wisdom of, among others, all the federal judges who have found ObamaCare unconstitutional. Included in that number is Judge Frank Hull, who was appointed by Bill Clinton. Then there's former Bush solicitor general Theodore Olson, no intellectual lightweight he, who has filed an amicus brief with the Court in which he attacked the individual mandate as unconstitutional. The Left has lauded Olson for his work trying to overturn Calfornia's Proposition 8 in the federal courts. And as Reuters has reported, there's at least one Nobel Prize laureate who has joined a brief with the Court opposing the individual mandate. A full list of all the amici briefs can be found at SCOTUSblog.
The absurdity continues as Zeke argues that given the Commerce Clause, Congress can essentially do anything it wants, including forcing individuals to buy a certain product. Emanuel cynically brought up the use of the commerce clause to enforce desegregation of restaurants. The implication apparently is that health care is not merely that health care is a civil right, but that it's a right which must be enforced by the heavy hand of government intruding on every American's fundamental right to be left alone and not forced to buy products they don't wish to buy.
See the relevant transcript below.
Morning Joe
03/22/2012
7:23 a.m.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: All right. That was the President almost exactly two years ago as he signed the health care bill into law. Here with us now, former White House adviser for health policy and University of Pennsylvania's Vice Provost of Global Initiatives and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at U-Penn's Pearlman School of Medicine, Dr. Zeke Emanuel. You officially have the longest title of anyone who has been on the show.
ZEKE EMANUEL: They give you titles because they don't give you anything else, no power, no money.
BRZEZINSKI: What else do I need to say? Is there a list I need to read?
EMANUEL: My brother. You'll mention my brothers in a second.
BRZEZINSKI: You know what I’m going to lay off your brother. He makes me tired.
EMANUEL: Where's Joe?
BRZEZINSKI: He makes me tired too. Where is Joe?
EMANUEL: He’s afraid that I’m here. He decides I’m not showing up.
BRZEZINSKI: Let me ask you this. We have two years now to this being signed into law, and we are going, headed to the Supreme Court. So the fate of the individual mandate, can you give us a prognosis?
EMANUEL: I have two very large bets with Ronald Pearlman and another billionaire that this is gonna be upheld. It's definitely constitutional. I think there's no, no credible legal scholar that doubts it. The commerce clause allows Congress to do anything necessary and proper to maintain the market. And they will uphold it.
MIKE BARNICLE: For the economically illiterate, which would include me, could you please explain what is the problem with the mandate? Why is it --
BRZEZINSKI: What's the argument at stake?
BARNICLE: What's the argument at the supreme court about?
EMANUEL: So the argument is that Congress shouldn't force people to buy something that they otherwise wouldn't want to buy. And health insurance being something which many Americans or some Americans can't buy. And the claim is Congress cannot force you to do that. But the fact is, we know in the insurance market, if everyone doesn't buy, the insurance markets collapse. We have had a lot of exchanges around the country that have tried on a voluntary basis to have people purchase, and they always collapse because the people who end up buying are people who are sick. The people who are healthy find it too expensive so they stay out. The price goes up. Then the people who are just at the edge, healthy, they come out. And so you end up collapsing because the only sick people are in the market. To have a stable insurance market, you need everyone in, and that's what the mandate helps assure.
BRZEZINSKI: But the argument seems to make sense. You shouldn't have to buy something you don't want to buy. But let me ask you, is there a precedent for this argument?
EMANUEL: There are plenty of precedents.
BRZEZINSKI: Okay, so what are some of the key ones?
EMANUEL: George Washington required people to have guns. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court with the commerce clause required people who owned hotels and restaurants who didn't want to serve blacks to serve African-Americans because they wanted -- they said it was part of interstate commerce and you couldn't discriminate. And so I think there are many, many precedents. This is not actually unusual. Plus, we require people to get vaccinated. We were just talking about vaccines. We require people to get vaccinated partially for their own protection but also partially because it protects other people. If you are vaccinated, it reduces the chance that the virus will spread around the country.
BRZEZINSKI: Jeff Greenfield.
JEFF GREENFIELD: The argument on the other side is that -- and I don't want to get too wonky here, but they use the commerce clause rather than the taxing power to justify this. The taxing power clearly lets the Congress pretty much do anything. And the argument which one of the, some of the lower courts have embraced is this is inactivity. If not to participate in the health insurance market. The counterargument is, look, we just don't know when you might participate. If you don't have insurance and you get sick, you go to an er, they have to treat you, which raises the cost of health care for everybody. And that's going to be -- most people think that's the most powerful argument in favor of using the commerce clause to say, ok, congress can mandate this. The problem is that this more recent Supreme Court for the first time since the new deal -- and when I say this court, i mean over the last 10 years -- has on a couple of occasions said to the Congress and the President, you have exceeded the reach of the commerce clause.
EMANUEL: But look, even Justice Scalia, my friend, has written that the last part of the commerce clause says Congress can do anything necessary and proper to effectuate its powers. Necessary and proper he says is vast powers of Congress.
GREENFIELD: This is what were going to come down to. It's been a long time since i was in law school,
EMANUEL: And I’ve never been there.
GREENFIELD: and I never had a practice. But I do think that it's not that clear that this supreme court and how it reads the constitution and the scope of federal power is that prepared to embrace this argument.
EMANUEL: Well, this just isn't conservatives because you have Charles Freed, who was a solicitor general under Ronald Reagan. You have the justice who was Silverburg --
GREENFIELD: Silverman.
EMANUEL: I'm sorry, Silverman, at the D.C. Circuit, all saying that this is clearly within the scope of Congress' power.
- Jeffrey Meyer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
duh!
Submitted by caveman1313 on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 4:50pm.
we all know that the only credible constitution scholars are liberal so it is not a surprise to hear they all find that obamacare is constitutional.
btw, it would be nice to see one of these "journalists" ask their interviewee to name some of these credible scholars
Wow !
Submitted by nixon on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 4:53pm.
You'd think that they could come up with something better than a rehashed AGW phrase . The clown almost sounds like one of the folks that said things like that constantly around here. Josef F maybe ?
Huh....?
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 4:55pm.
"George Washington required people to have guns. "
I guess that must have been overturned by an earlier SCOTUS because I don't have a gun and nobody is making me buy one.
Somehow I do not think history will back that up.
He may have wanted certain people to have guns but mandatory gun ownership was not required by every single person merely for being a citizen.
Huh....? (Part 2)
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 5:05pm.
"In the 1960s, the Supreme Court with the commerce clause required people who owned hotels and restaurants who didn't want to serve blacks to serve African-Americans because they wanted -- they said it was part of interstate commerce and you couldn't discriminate."
So basically, we don't really need any other parts of the constitution. The framers should have just written the commerce clause and left it at that.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
13th and 14th
Submitted by libBuster on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 6:39pm.
Actually the basis for the civil rights laws are the 13th and 14th Amendments. "Constitutional Scholars" said the law schools would win in FAIR v Rumsfeld. They lost 9-0.
Never ask an MD for Constituional law advice
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 5:23pm.
EMANUEL: So the argument is that Congress shouldn't force people to buy something that they otherwise wouldn't want to buy. . .
That's correct. That IS the argument.
EMANUEL: . . . And health insurance being something which many Americans or some Americans can't buy. And the claim is Congress cannot force you to do that. But the fact is, we know in the insurance market, if everyone doesn't buy, the insurance markets collapse. . .
Then why haven't the life insurance and automobile insurance companies collapsed? They appear to be thriving.
EMANUEL: ". . . To have a stable (health) insurance market, you need everyone in, and that's what the mandate helps assure."
Hence the argument. If that's the case, then the Congress could mandate that everyone buy a US-made automobile to stabilize the auto market.
BRZEZINSKI: But the argument seems to make sense. You shouldn't have to buy something you don't want to buy. But let me ask you, is there a precedent for this argument?
Hey, give Mika a treat. That's right -- it seems to make sense because it does make sense.
EMANUEL: There are plenty of precedents.
BRZEZINSKI: Okay, so what are some of the key ones?
EMANUEL: George Washington required people to have guns. . .
I hadn't heard of this one, but the President has no Constitutional authority to do so without enacting martial law. Has Obama enacted martial law?
EMANUEL: . . . In the 1960s, the Supreme Court with the commerce clause required people who owned hotels and restaurants who didn't want to serve blacks to serve African-Americans because they wanted -- they said it was part of interstate commerce and you couldn't discriminate. . . ."
That was an extended application of the Commerce Clause, but that's not an example of forcing someone to either purchase a commercial product they don't want or pay a fine..
EMANUEL: ". . . And so I think there are many, many precedents. This is not actually unusual. . ."
Wrong. It is unusual. In fact, it is UNPRECEDENTED, Dr. Emanuel.
EMANUEL: ". . . Plus, we require people to get vaccinated. We were just talking about vaccines. We require people to get vaccinated partially for their own protection but also partially because it protects other people. If you are vaccinated, it reduces the chance that the virus will spread around the country."
True. But those people are participating in a government activity, such as attending a public school. People who are not attending public schools are not compelled to get vaccinated.
This is not unlike the driver's license and auto insurance example often cited. The government has authority over the public roads, so it can require that drivers pass a driving test and have auto insurance. But they don't have to have either if they don't drive and don't own a car. Obamacare is as if every adult in the nation had to buy automobile insurance whether they owned a car or not.
That's what's at issue.
Good points all Galvanic
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 8:17am.
Especially your last one on auto insurance. I use the same one often myself. I also take it a step further concerning the fines for not purchasing as tied to the pre-existing condition clause in the bill:
If someone doesn't purchase health insurance as required, they will be fined. However, the fine is far less than the cost of insurance. Very simple math for many. Secondly, these people paying the fines instead of the insurance suddenly develop a serious (and very expensive) medical condition. They then go get insurance, which the insurance company is FORCED to sell them regardless of their pre-existing condition.
The auto analogy is:
You drive your car without insurance, which would cost you $1500 per year. The fine for not having insurance is $200. Simple math - it's far cheaper to pay the fine than the premium. One day you wrap your car around a telephone pole. THEN you go buy auto insurance which State Farm, or Allstate, or whoever is FORCED to sell you, regardless of the pre-existing condition of your car. Once you have the policy in hand, you tell them you obviously need a new car, since the one they just insured is totaled. Oh, and you also knocked over the telephone pole and ran several people off the road on your way to the pole, all of which will also need to be paid for by your new bestest buddies at the insurance company.
Keep in mind, I DESPISE insurance companies, but fair is fair. They are a necessary evil. This Obamacare isn't.
Automobile vs Health Insurance
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 9:01am.
The arguments concerning automobile vs health insurance are great arguments and very logical. That being a given, these arguments are not meaningful to the comparison of Obama Care's required mandate and the mandate that an individual driving a car is required to purchase automobile insurance.
Automobile insurance is mandated by your state or local government, (most likely the state). Some states used to accept bonds posted for liability instead of the purchase of car insurance, (I'm no longer sure if any states still do this). States can also require that an individual purchase health insurance. States or local communities can also require you to purchase other things, like a car seat for your infant child.
The difference is that Obama Care is a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to make an individual purchase a service or commodity. Your state, based on it's constitution, does have that power.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
But it's even bigger, K-17
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 12:25pm.
Under the rubrik of public safety, states can mandate that automobilie operators/owners buy auto insurance, but they can't fine the people who neither operate or own the automobiles.
Obamacare proponents argue that sooner or later, everyone needs medical care, so the Federal government can mandate that everyone share the costs, or pay the fine.
But if I'm wealthy enough to pay any medical bills I might accrue, why should I pay a fine for not purchasing something I don't need?
That's the deeper issue, and holds all kinds of precedence implications if the Court upholds it.
Unmitigated Disaster
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 12:36pm.
I agree totally with your deeper issue concerns, Galvanic. If the State we live in becomes too onerous, with regards to regulation, we always had the option of leaving that State, moving to one that suited us, and still remaining a United States citizen. If the Feds are allowed to grab and hold this level of power over everyone, our only recourse will be to find a new country
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Again, good points Kingfish
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:10am.
The major difference between the authority of state and federal government is that pesky old Constitution. And it is far, far easier to repeal state authority than it is federal overreach. In addition, state mandates over insurance are kept within the state, while the fed's single argument on Obamacare is the INTERstate commerce clause. As was stated, if you don't like it and can't or won't change it, you can always move to another state. I know it's not always as simple as that, but at least it's an option. The only option for Obamacare is to leave the country...
To further expound on the "everyone sooner or later
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 9:15am.
will participate in the healthcare market, and then it becomes a burden to the rest of society to pay those bills" argument:
That argument essentially admits that we've rolled over and everyone should get free healthcare anyway, even though they've not planned for it. The example they always use is, "well, what if you're in a car accident and you have no insurance - should we leave those people at the curb with no medical treatment?"
No, accidents are not truly an issue. Very small part of the dollars spent on people who are not covered. Here's what you do: if you have no insurance and you show up at the emergency room, you're stabilized (sewn up, bones set, whatever the accident treatment calls for), admitted if required, but that's it. If you were, on the other hand to show up with stage 2 cancer...sorry, you didn't plan for something like this. Stabilize, discharge, get your affairs in order.
After all, if YOU didn't value your own life enough to get catastrophic coverage, why is it MY responsibility to foot your bills? Of course, the Feds have screwed up the health insurance market so much, that affordable catastrophic care policies are all but gone.
Somehow, our parents and grandparents got by without having to see a doctor for every sniffle, hangnail and sour mood that affected them. People's expectation of free state-of-the-art healthcare is unrealistic.
Too dumb or too lazy?
Submitted by JeffC... on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 5:12pm.
Is MSNBC too dumb or too lazy to go find people who don't agree with them? I don't think anyone left at the network associates with anyone who isn't in full agreement with them.
Joe who?
Submitted by Schofield Kid on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 2:13pm.
I would've thought that the guy the show's named after, you know the one who claims to be conservative might have had something to say about this. Don't watch, so maybe he was gone that day, but he makes pretty weak arguments for conservative causes when he does speak.
Morning Joe
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 2:32pm.
Actually, the only thing clever about this show is the name. When MSNBC decides that even far left of center, RINO Joe Scarborough, becomes too conservative for MSNBC, they can give him the axe and keep the name, associated with the cup of coffee in the logo.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Zeke Emanuel is not going to
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 5:14pm.
Zeke Emanuel is not going to tell you it is unconstitutinal, he is going to cover his own backside of course.
Today's lesson in
Submitted by celator on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 5:34pm.
Today's lesson in Obama-speak: a "credible scholar" is one who agrees with Obama on all things. These are the scholars who are wearing "I Wuve Obama" T-Shirts and have a "Re-Elect Obama" poster on the wall of their faculty office. Easy to spot.
Zeke Emanuel
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 6:22pm.
Ah, the so-called medical ethicist who espouses principles of which Joseph Mengele would be proud.
Yep. He's credible.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Well...
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 6:45pm.
I've been MJ free for about 3 weeks now, and I noticed the lame liberals on FOX just amuse me now, instead of annoy. I tried, I really did, but when MJ jumped on the "Against O's policies? You RACIST you!!!" bandwagon, I got sick and tired of being insulted.
Too bad, they had some interesting and lively convos at times until they went all in on the O re-elect campaign.
Ronald Reagan
Logic 101 FAIL
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 7:37pm.
This is a basic logical fallacy, and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. Only an idiot would dispute the constitutionality of Obamacare. No reputable scientist denies global warming/climate change/carboniferous gasification of the atmosphere/whatever they're calling it this week. (Greg Gutfield made a living off this kind of argument.) FAIL
They make people get vaccinations, don't they? Yep, and they quarantine dangerous communicable diseases ... except one that afflicts a protected class in disproportionately large numbers, so they hide the information from others out of concern for injured feelings and perhaps insurance and employment complications. Hmmmmm. FAIL
Yep!
Submitted by MacWell on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 8:21pm.
Give that man a cigar, spot on, on both points.
All of this chicanery would not happen if...
Submitted by MacWell on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 8:33pm.
we the people had the Congress that we were meant to have.
This den of lawyers and thieves has been lying to us, stealing from us, and making fools of us for too long. We the people must, of course, remove all of those people who believe America needs to be "fundamentally transformed".
We must also help our new President by beginning to remove all the career politicians from Congress. These are the people who gave us this damn crappy law to begin with. Almost 3000 pages of legalize that we're told by none other than the Speaker of the House of Representatives, that "we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it". Congress was never intended to be filled with lawyers. The House was intended to be filled with Americans from all walks of life. Joe the plumbers, Mary the Librarian, Bill the Accountant, and Sally the Homemaker. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us at best. We need common sense opinions from everyday people. We've been conned into believing that you must have little letters after your name in order to serve, that was not the founder's intent. Sometimes little letters get in the way of progress, they somehow drain common sense.
We the people, the silent majority cannot remain silent any longer, we MUST come out in droves in November because we know if it's a close race, the only winners will be the lawyers.
All you need to know about Zeke Emanual is:
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:36pm.
"Zeke Emanuel, former health policy advisor for President Obama". Do you HONESTLY think that anyone associated with the most polarizing president in the history of this country would say that it WASN'T constitutional?
What does anyone in the Obama administration.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:50pm.
know about "credibility"?
Skyron
Submitted by m1xram on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 2:56am.
On planet Skyron, I'm quite sure he's right. And remember... beware of Blancmange's wearing kilts.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Saul Alinsky tacticts at work.
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 8:03am.
Lie about it. Keep lying. If someone seems to start doubting that you are telling the truth, tell an even bigger lie. If they accuse you of lying, question the persons character and call them racisit/bigoted/evil.
And once again we see that MSNBC is the DNC press office in operation.
Interesting statement from Judge Napolitano last night...He was asked about the unprecedented length of the oral arguments for Obamacare starting next week. He opined that it was to make clear to the American public that the SCOTUS takes this seriously. He also said that oral arguments have almost NEVER changed the mind of a supreme court justice. They all know how they are going to rule and the all know why, already.
When the mandate is struck down and Congress has to either try and "fix" the legislation without it's keystone, or just simply scrap it, it will be interesting to see if Obama pulls an FDR and proposes that the SCOTUS is too small for it's weighty and important job and recommends adding a few more justices "to help with the worload".
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
So let me get this straight
Submitted by Nemesisesq on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 9:17am.
A doctor who probably doesn't practive actual medicine anymore, knows that the law is consitutional despite the fact he has no legal bonafides. But, he cannot speak to the poor messaging effort of the adminstration is was a member off, regarding the law he helped to create....
Got it.
If this lazy analysis makes it on to TV, the medium is doomed.
Actually, this was the 'money part' of their discussion!
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 12:54pm.
GREENFIELD: This is what were going to come down to. It's been a long time since i was in law school,
EMANUEL: And I’ve never been there.
GREENFIELD: and I never had a practice.
- - - - -
So why were these two talking about constitutional law on the TV in the first place? I can go to Starbucks and talk to the barista for this kind of insightfull thinking.