Bill O’Reilly Declares the Commerce Clause and the US Constitution BS

On his FNC show tonight Bill O’Reilly declared that the government does not have the right to force a person to buy health insurance. After asking for the definition of the Commerce Clause O’Reilly said, “This is total BS. This is why people hate lawyers. This is nuts.” Bill-O, constitutional scholar, thinks the constitution and the Commerce Clause are BS.

Here is the video courtesy of Media Matters:

After he declared that his audience doesn’t know what the Commerce Clause O’Reilly asked guest Lis Wiehl to explain it. As she started to explain it, O’Reilly interrupted her and said, “I want the audience to know, this is total BS. This is why people hate lawyers this is nuts.” Later he gave his explanation, “The government is saying you have to buy health insurance. You have to do it. I say that’s unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force an American to buy anything.”

Under O’Reilly’s logic the government mandate that drivers buy auto insurance is also unconstitutional because the government can’t force you to buy anything. O’Reilly ended the segment by saying that the government can’t force you to do or buy anything. This simply is not true. The government forces parents to get their vaccinated before they enroll in school.

Using O’Reilly’s reasoning the health insurance mandate in Massachusetts is illegal, but it isn’t, and the city of San Francisco’s universal health care plan was also ruled legal last year. The legal challenge that O’Reilly and his guests were discussing doesn’t exist. A little bit of research before they went on the air would have revealed that people, who think that a health insurance mandate is unconstitutional, don’t have a leg to stand on.

Bill-O wasn’t basing his argument on any sort of research or reasoning. He just thinks that when the Constitution is applied to a position that he disagrees with, the Constitution is BS. Bill O’Reilly playing legal scholar on television is a very scary thing.

2 Replies to “Bill O’Reilly Declares the Commerce Clause and the US Constitution BS”

  1. J.M Easley:

    In your haste to write a response to Bill O’Reilly’s segment you neglected to include specific details refuting his argument. The most simple and comprehensive article I have read on this subject in recent days is located at: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/20/is-national-health-insurance-constitutional/.

    Also, in response to the second half of your post, I think it is important to point out that the constitutional argument goes as follows:

    1. Article I, Section 8, does not grant Congress the power to institute a national health care or insurance program.

    2. Therefore, under Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights, the power to institute a national health care or insurance program is reserved to the States. Amendment 10 reads:

    “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.”

    3. Consequently, the State of Massachusettes and the City of San Francisco CAN in fact create their own programs as sovereign entities. Anyone who studies the constitution is aware of this horizontal separation of power.

    4. If Congress wants the power to institute a national health care or insurance program then we must turn to Article V, which identifies the procedures for amending the United States Constitution. If the support for universal health care is as strong as its proponents insist, then the proposed constitutional amendment should have no difficulty securing the necessary two-thirds support within both Houses of Congress and then be ratified by the Legislatures of at least three-fourths of the independent States.

  2. I’m sorry but I’m going to have to agree with Bill here, can’t believe I’m saying that… but to me it smells like a deal between the insurance fat cats and congress to secure customers. I mean why compete and convince the individual that health insurance is a necessasty when you can pay congress to make it one?

    After that, the industry has no check and balance, as the people cannot boycott the health insurance industry, because then they’d be fined.

    Imagine if to counter Martin Luther King the government decided to made having a bus pass mandatory. That would cut that boycott right in half.

    Money is power, and congress is securing their lobbyist income by forcing us to pay this new ‘tax’. And they are taking away our power to say no to this inflation inducing system.

    The interstate dealings have nothing to do with health insurance, or specifically, not having health insurance. I’m paying a local hospital for their services, if the federal wanted to regulate the hospital’s supplies it gets from out of state, then the hospital’s transaction is what gets regulated, not the consumer’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.