Senator Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) introduced a resolution calling on Minnesota’s entire congressional delegation to vote against what she says is an unconstitutional federal health care reform bill expected to come to a vote in the US House as soon as Sunday.

 

Ortman’s resolution also calls on the state attorney general to prepare to defend the rights of Minnesota as a state in the union.

 

After a failed attempt to swiftly pull the resolution straight to the Senate floor for a debate, the bill met its fate in the Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee today.

 

In the end, the resolution didn’t make it out of the committee, but it made for some interesting interaction between committee members. A discussion of the US Constitution and the bearing of the 10^th amendment on state authority by state lawmakers was revealing.

 

 

When health care writer and Constitutional teacher Dave Racer was testifying before the committee on the unconstitutional nature of the federal health care bill, he said, “Under the Federal Constitution, the federal government has no authority to require me to buy health insurance.”

 

Senator Berglin (D-Minneapolis) chimed in, saying, “Just because you say something is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean it is and it doesn’t mean that we should believe it is. The commerce clause of the US Constitution does give the Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. The sale of insurance is part of interstate commerce.”

 

Senator Ortman interjected “If Congress were going to regulate the health care industry, they can do that, but that’s not what this is. This is a mandate to me as an individual to buy health insurance and the commerce clause has never been used in that way.”

 

Berglin responded, “There is no fundamental right in the Constitution to be uninsured.”

 

 “I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I hope that you will read [the Constitution],” Ortman replied.

 

 

Speaking about the 10^th amendment to the Constitution, which reserves powers not specifically enumerated for the federal government to the states and to the People, Senator Higgins (D-Minneapolis) said, “I get really frustrated with this tendency to parse every word in this little section of the Constitution.

 

“The people who wrote the Constitution never imagined that we would have air travel, so is the Air Force unconstitutional? Is our regulation of airports and airlines unconstitutional?” Higgins asked.

 

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the right to raise and support armies (the Air Force evolved from the US Army), maintain the Navy (the rest of our primary air power resides with the Navy) and to regulate commerce between the states.

 

“How about the interstate highway system? Is that unconstitutional? There’s nothing in here about a highway system,” she said, tapping a copy of the Constitution. “There’s something about post roads, whatever that is.”

 

Perhaps Senator Higgins could benefit from a refresher course in the Constitution. The power to create post roads is enumerated for the federal government by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. A post road is literally a road for the delivery of mail, or in other words, a federal highway system.

 

Higgins went on to cite more examples of federal programs she didn’t believe were enumerated in the Constitution. “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bureau of Mines, Small Business Administration… the Environmental Protection Agency all of these things have come to us as our world has evolved.

 

“I just find the whole thing just really frustrating,” she concluded.

 

 

Senator Marty (D-Roseville) offered an amendment to Ortman’s resolution that would have reversed the intent. Marty’s amendment changed the resolution to one encouraging Minnesota’s congressional delegation to vote for Obamacare.

 

Marty said if the bill was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would deal with it and suggested it should be supported, questions of constitutionality notwithstanding.

 

Marty’s amendment maneuver would have left Ortman’s name on a resolution bill calling on Congress to do the opposite of what she intended if the amendment was adopted. Given the makeup of the committee, the adoption of Senator Marty’s amendment was almost a certainty, despite objections from some senators about the disrespectful nature of that play.

 

Senator Ortman asked for a motion to be made to table her resolution, essentially killing it rather than have it amended to state the opposite of her intent with her name as chief author left on the bill. 

A motion to table was made and adopted by the committee, ending Senator Ortman’s attempt to offer a resolution asserting Minnesota’s sovereign rights as a state in the United States of America.

See video of the committee meeting. Discussion of Sen. Ortman's resolution begins about 2 hours in.