opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Michael Barone
Michael Barone
12 Feb 2016
New Hampshire's Rebuke

New Hampshire voters issued a rebuke to conventional party leaders when they voted by large margins for … Read More.

9 Feb 2016
How History Shapes the New Hampshire Primary

Benning Wentworth is not a name you'll run across in New Hampshire primary coverage. But he arguably did as … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
Probing for Clues in the Iowa Caucus Numbers

Now that the results of last Monday's Iowa caucuses are in, speculation naturally turns to next Tuesday's New … Read More.

Americans Are Worrying About the Constitution Again


"I don't worry about the Constitution," said Rep. Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, at a town hall meeting where voters questioned his support of the legislation that became Obamacare. You can find the clip on, where it has 462,084 hits.

That was before the 2010 election, in which Hare, running for a third term in a district designed by Democrats to elect a Democrat, was defeated 53 to 43 percent by Bobby Schilling, proprietor of a pizza parlor in East Moline.

A lot of politicians are worrying about the Constitution these days. Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices — a majority — asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional.

And so the Constitution — and the limits it places on Congress' powers — is once again part of our politics. And will continue to be, whichever way the Court rules.

For 70 years, since the court in 1942 said the government could limit the amount of wheat farmer Roscoe Filburn could grow on his own land to feed his own animals, it has been generally assumed that the federal government's power to regulate the economy had no limits.

That assumption survived in liberal precincts even though the court in 1995 overturned a law banning guns in schools and in 2000 ruled unconstitutional parts of the Violence Against Women Act.

But the arguments, developed by Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett and others, that it is beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution for Congress to mandate the purchase of a commercial product — health insurance in Obamacare — were certainly taken seriously by a majority of Supreme Court justices last week.

And the government's lawyers were unable to answer the questions of both liberal and conservative justices: If Congress can do this, what can't it do?

That question is likely to linger even if the court upholds Obamcare.

For the justices are not the only federal officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So do the president and vice president, Cabinet members and other appointees, and every member of Congress. Phil Hare may not have been worried about the Constitution, but his constituents evidently thought he should be.

That means that every federal official has an obligation to act in line with the Constitution as he or she understands it.

And that doesn't necessarily mean obeying Supreme Court decisions.

Many constitutional issues never come before the Supreme Court, which only rules on lawsuits. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issues rulings based on the Constitution, which are generally regarded as binding precedents by administrations of different parties, even though cases never go to court.

Presidents of different parties regularly issue signing statements, saying that they will not carry out provisions of laws they sign that they regard as unconstitutional. Barack Obama decried signing statements when he was campaigning, but as president he has issued them himself.

Members of Congress may reasonably regard themselves as bound to vote against measures they conscientiously believe unconstitutional. Barry Goldwater did this when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though he had integrated his own business many years before, on constitutional grounds.

Goldwater's constitutional argument, predictably, wasn't accepted by the Supreme Court. And his vote gave the Republican Party an unfair reputation for being anti-civil rights. But I think he was entitled to think his oath required him to vote that way.

Clearly the two parties are divided on the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate. Polls have shown large majorities of voters think the provision is unconstitutional, though one can wonder whether many have given the matter much thought.

But they're certainly giving it more thought after this week and will likely give it more when the decision comes down.

Voters can reasonably ask candidates for Congress their views on this and other constitutional issues and call on them to vote against measures they consider beyond Congress' constitutional powers.

If the Court overturns Obamacare, Obama may be tempted to attack the court. He should beware. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, a few months after landslide re-election, proposed to pack the Supreme Court with new appointees.

Gallup polls showed majorities opposed, and in the next election, proponents of FDR's New Deal lost their congressional majorities. Lesson: Most American voters worry about the Constitution.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




6 Comments | Post Comment
Nancy Pelosi herself had one of those "who cares about the Constitution" moments. Someone asked her what part of the Constitution gives Congress the power to force citizens to buy insurance, and her response was, "Seriously?" as though it was the most absurd thing anyone had ever asked her.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Sun Apr 1, 2012 10:14 PM
Nancy Pelosi is unConstitutional and a fraud!!!
Comment: #2
Posted by: buffalo1
Mon Apr 2, 2012 9:22 AM
For a politician of any party to not care about the constitution is totally unacceptable. The soundbit of that democratic congressman should be the only ammo a challanger needs during the next election. I have heard no good arguements to the "where does the power end" question in regards to the healthcare mandate. If the mandate is struck down (which I doubt), then they should start over by passing parts Obamacare. There is no reason a 2,700 page law of any kind should ever pass congress. No one actually read that behemoth of a bill, nor should they be expected to. There should be a limit on the size of new bills. Laws need to be read and understood before voted on. None of this "we have to pass the bill to find out whats in it" bullcrap.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Apr 2, 2012 9:33 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

"There is no reason a 2,700 page law of any kind should ever pass congress. No one actually read that behemoth of a bill, nor should they be expected to."

You couldn't actually sit down and read that monstrosity and make any sense of it if you wanted to, anyway. A large part of it is changes to other federal laws, which you would have to read and understand before you could grasp the effect of the changes. It would literally take someone months to figure it all out, and even then, they'd better be a lawyer if they want to fully understand it.

As for the individual mandate being struck down, I'm fairly certain that it will be. Even the liberals on the Court seemed skeptical of the way they've stretched the Commerce Clause on this one. I'd really like to see the whole concept of using the Commerce Clause to justify the expansion of federal powers be struck down, but that's probably too much to hope for.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Mon Apr 2, 2012 11:29 PM
Thanks Jeff. Your optimism gives me hope that this mandate will get shut down and the Supreme Court will give the Obama administration a clear message that it can't just do whatever it wants.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Apr 3, 2012 9:06 AM
Sir;... The constitution is a piece of crap that does not achieve any goal it was created to achieve, all clearly listed in the Preamble, and it does not protect the poor and working people from the predations of the rich... I do not care if some people put the Constitution right up there with God Almighty, as some seem to do... The Constitution ought to be pulled down, and everything between the Bill of Rights and the Preamble should be trashed outright, and every right should be considered as to whether it is a right at all, or simply a privilage...Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Apr 9, 2012 5:05 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Michael Barone
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 13 Feb 2016
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 12 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 12 Feb 2016

26 Jan 2016 Americans Tired of Elites Considering Them Stupid and Vicious

30 May 2011 Pro-Obama Media Always Shocked by Bad Economic News

12 Jul 2010 Obama Economy Sends Americans to Their Mattresses