In a lot of debates about the proposed federal health care reforms, I hear the word "unconstitutional" getting thrown around. It's usually in a context of: The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that the government can provide health coverage, therefore any attempt to do that would be unconstitutional.
I don't want to get into the debate over health care reform right now, so much as address the whole concept of "unconstitutional."
I've heard similar arguments on different subjects that apply the same reasoning. For example, I recently spoke to someone who said that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that lawmakers are allowed to serve multiple terms in office, therefore it's unconstitutional.
That strikes me as illogical.
Again, I'm not taking issue with this guy's opinion on term limits. What I'm disputing is the argument that doing something is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't specifically say you can do it.
I'm no expert on constitutional law. But it seems to me that something is unconstitutional if it violates a provision in the U.S. Constitution -- not if the Constitution doesn't mention it.
My reasoning is simple. There are a lot of things the U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically say we're permitted to do. Three quick examples: making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, playing the ukulele and going to the bathroom. Does that mean those activities are "unconstitutional"?
Leave a comment