He needs more General Welfare Clause cowbell.
Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had "broad authority."Readers having shred #1 of common sense interpret Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution as giving a limited set of powers to Congress, as well as enough wiggle room to carry out those powers.
"Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end," Hoyer said. "The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."
The subsequent Amendment 10 should have been a firewall against this Progressive Hoyer-hooey. But there sits Amendment 16: Congress has eminent domain over YOUR WALLET. It's a century-old problem. The best vehicle I've seen for steamrolling the rampant Hoyerism is The Federalism Amendment.
The question is how bad things have to get to trigger an Article 5 cram-down. You know these neo-aristocrats are going to pay as much attention to the American People now as George III did back then.
I say this coming from a district with a bullet-proof piece of work in office, VA-8. At the Green Tea Party, I said to a speaker who was from Hoyer's district "I'll trade you Jim Moran for Steny Hoyer." That speaker (no recollection of his name) allowed that he was unsure which of us would be receiving the bigger screwing.
Back at TFA:
David B. Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer with Baker & Hostetler, told CNSNews.com that Hoyer’s argument was "silly," adding that if the general welfare clause was that elastic, then nothing would be outside of Congress' powers.Now, for those lacking common sense, or enjoying a Federal collar on the neck, a feeble argument is no disqualifier, as long as it's backed with government cheese.
"Congressman Hoyer is wrong," Rivkin said. "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that’s true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything.
"The arguments are, I believe, feeble," he said.