Edwards Camp: Yes, Our Health Care Proposal Is Constitutional

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_camp_yes_our_health_care_proposal_is_constitutional.php

Edwards Camp: Yes, Our Health Care Proposal Is Constitutional
By Eric Kleefeld - November 13, 2007, 12:57PM

The Edwards campaign has responded to allegations that the candidate's vow to take health care benefits away from Congress if they don't pass universal health coverage, which is the centerpiece of his new ad, would violate the 27th Amendment. Their response is available after the jump.

The 27th Amendment, first submitted to the states by Congress in 1789 and not ratified until 1992, reads as follows: "No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

The campaign has said that a particular part of Edwards' proposal, that he would make his own political appointees pledge not to accept health benefits as a potent gesture, is undoubtedly Constitutional. As for taking away coverage from Congress, they believe it can also withstand a challenge.

Since the Amendment was originally intended to deal with Congress raising its own pay, they don't believe it applies to pay cuts, and that it's unclear as to whether non-salary benefits are included. They also say that Edwards would submit such legislation on his first day in office.

Furthermore, campaign spokesman Eric Schultz practically dared Congress to contest such an action. "If Members of Congress and the Washington establishment want to go to court to argue they have a constitutional right to health care when the American people don't, that is a fight President Edwards is willing to have," Schultz said in an e-mail to TPM. "The point is to hold our leaders accountable for getting this done."

Its not about a right to healthcare you moron!

Its about the executive wielding power over the legislative in a punitive fashion.

Its about checks and balances.

Did you see Sicko? Maybe it's not about just healthcare, but I put it in a virtual tie with any other issue you can pony up...

as far as I know.

certainly support President Edwards taking them to the woodshed, as Congress should not be above the people :D

Unfortunately, my freeper friends think "checks and balances" means "thou shalt not take from the rich and give to the poor"...."it's not our fault people make dumb decisions and become poor."

I kid you not.

But it is for people that need it.

and why the need to call him a moron? Please.

Care to explain that one, when it's a bill that will be submitted to Congress to be voted on?

Yeah, it'll be real empty hearing Senators and Representatives defend their health insurance coverage that is far and away better than what most Americans have, and that we get to pay for.

Yeah, absolutely nothing will come of that. :eyes:

and take notice. And it will probably get the attention of the American people as well. One thing I have to say about Edwards, he says and does things that displays the arrogance and greed of the current Washington crowd, both side of the aisles. Because old Grandma Nancy doesn't give a shit if we plebes and peasants have healthcare any more than any republican bastard does.

If you work for a living, you must support Edwards.

He's not the brightest bulb in the bubble pack.

So since I am not supporting Edwards, does that mean I can stop working for a living?

Edwards is trying to defend his election stunt and he is failing. The Executive can't punish the Legislative because it refuses to pass legislation that the Executive demands. That's a no-brainer.

That doesn't mean his meaningless threats won't play well with the clueless, but it won't happen unless Congress itself allows it to.

When Edwards says "I will use my power as President" he means "I will ask Congress to use their power."

When Edwards says "I will take away your health insurance" he means "I will ask you to take away your own health insurance."

Doublespeak.

Yeah, you are talking about the BI-PARTISAN congress that has submitted S-CHIP twice and can't get it passed.

They need this publicity like a hole in their collective heads.

I will give you a point for trying though. :hi:

which, according to google, you said here and at Daily Kos.

Google that second quote, and this is what you get:

Edwards Camp: Yes, Our Health Care Proposal Is Constitutional
When Edwards says "I will take away your health insurance" he means "I will ask you to take away your own health insurance." Doublespeak. ...
upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/ duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3713798 - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Daily Kos: Bush's Latest Unconstitutional Power Grab
"I will take away your health insurance." What he means:. "I will ask you to voluntarily surrender your own health insurance." ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/13/142639/39 - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

AFAICT, Edwards never said that.

Incidentally, here's the entire post at Daily Kos:

Well, then he's engaging in Doublespeak and (4+ / 0-)
the Politics of Parsing.

What he says:

"I will use my power as President"

What he means:

"I will ask Congress to use its power."

What he says:

"I will take away your health insurance."

What he means:

"I will ask you to voluntarily surrender your own health insurance."

Makes Clinton's drivers license answer look like the Straight Talk Express.

"ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

by Geekesque on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:46:05 AM PST
< Parent >

doubt that Edwards will have much trouble persuading Congress to pass a national health care measure. How is a member of the House going to defend his or her unwillingness to forego healthcare benefits during the next election in his district. Edwards will have no problem enforcing his vow about healthcare benefits for Congress.

Thanks for linking to this from another thread!

"If Members of Congress and the Washington establishment want to go to court to argue they have a constitutional right to health care when the American people don't, that is a fight President Edwards is willing to have," Schultz said in an e-mail to TPM. "The point is to hold our leaders accountable for getting this done."

cold porridge.

If "President" Edwards wants to demonstrate some real courage, let him stand up for real universal health care instead of the gilt covered turd he's trying to pass off.

Courage, ptooey.

A Spoonful of sugar helps the snake oil go down
The snake oil go down-wown
The snake oil go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the snake oil go down
In a most delightful way

as you have alleged both to me and to this poster.

We think he's full of shit.

Afraid? I'd be more scared if he was nominated because he doesn't seem to know much about policy, both domestically and internationally.

Jealous? Of a war-voting, PATRIOT Act-supporting DLCer? Hardly.

It is written with UHC as the goal as opposed to the utopian ideal of shutting the industry off tomorrow. It sets up corporations to have to COMPETE with a medicare-for-all type plan where people can choose a 30% overhead vs a 3% overhead.

You may want to read up on it as it is the best WORKABLE means out there to get us to the end.

I like HR 676 too and in a perfect world we would have it, but it can't even get out of sub-committee and in 1993, with a Democratic President, Democratic Congress and Democratic Senate -- we couldn't get it done because of industry and the lobbyists.

This plan is the only workable (FEASIBLE) one on the slate, unlike Clinton's plan to make us all pay the industry for coverage (under penalty of ??? -- she hasn't said).

Thanks, but I have had enough of the insurance industry running this segment of society. They want to compete with the government, let 'em.

Otherwise we are all sitting, uninsured, with our pipe dreams.

It's a weak, halfway measure, and the "mandatory" element is an absolute non-starter for me.

I don't like the plan. I don't like that it is mandatory, and I think it is cynical in the extreme to refer to a mandatory health plan as "universal health care". I don't like his use of code words like "responsibility" which the Republicans, and later the Clinton administration, and other DLC type Democrats, have used to create support for and justify gutting social welfare programs of all stripes.

Americans want a single payer system, mandatory for the government to administer, not for them to participate in. Too many Americans already have to choose between things like food and rent every month, without having to worry about yet another bill imposed upon them. Let Edwards apply the energy to a real single payer plan that he is to this plan (Hillary's plan is virtually identical, by the way) and he might have something. But in spite of telling us out of one side of his mouth that "Americans are tired of incremental steps and half measures" and want "bold" action, he offers something certainly incremental, and quite likely not even at the level of a half measure.

The American health care system is in trouble because of the for profit interests that drive it, and the problem won't be solved until the model of health care as a for profit commodity is obliterated. This plan simply tries to have it both ways, and a house divided against itself will not stand - it carries the seeds of its own destruction within itself.

You obviously disagree, and that's your prerogative, it goes without saying. The plan I favor is Kucinich's, hands down the best, and sadly, not feasible precisely because of the fact no one is willing to fight for it, with the result that we get cheap, watered down plans like Edwards' (and Clinton's) that do not address the problem at the roots.

:applause:

Bush threatening to slash Congress's pay unless they passed more war funding, and the article read:

"If Members of Congress and the Washington establishment want to go to court to argue they have a constitutional right to funding when our soldiers in Iraq don't, that is a fight President Bush is willing to have," Perino said in an e-mail to Fox News. "The point is to hold our leaders accountable for getting this done."

Edwards' proposal is obviously unconstitutional. They're not saying they have a right to health care. They're saying that Edwards doesn't have the right to strip that from them. There's a difference.

Would you give Bush the right to strip Congress of its salaries if they don't vote for his war?

Just because you claim it's constitutional, which it may be, doesn't make it acceptable.

Good luck, Mr. Edwards.

"Whatever, dipshit"?!?!

Mind telling us unwashed masses why it's unacceptable?

:woohoo:

the flat fact of the matter is that the office of the president
has absolutely no authority to cancel the health care insurance
of members of congress.

that congress would have to pass. Ball would be in their court.

They could refuse to pass it.

They could pass it.

If they pass it and it's actually unconstitutional, someone with standing would have to have the political courage (or lack of foresight) to challenge it in court.

And what's that going to look like to voters?

I would have thought that we would have learned our lesson
about "symbolic gestures" lately. they are almost completely
worthless. if there isn't a tangible benefit attached, it's a
waste of precious time and effort.

Even reading just the quoted portion would have told you that. Reading the article imparts all manner of wonderful knowledge.

when we citizens don't.

course.....snip and parse at it.

Edwards supporters....do not fall into the trap of the anti-Edwards thread rats.........don't let them frame the debate. And so to you anti-Edwards thread rats I say.

IT'S THE BULLY, PULPIT....STUPID.


THE BULLY PULPIT IS A POWERFUL TOOL........and when a powerful and well spoken President commands prime time TV slots, and takes his case to the American people.....just watch what happens.

that this is a silly idea. it may in fact turn out to be
smart in terms of campaign politics (i.e., it may move his
poll numbers), but if you seriously expect a hypothetical
president edwards to actually push extra-constitutional
legislation down the throats of his own party's congressional
leadership, I think you will be disappointed.

not to mention that the entire endeavor will be a huge
distraction. the real issue of universal health care would
be lost in the noise of the brawl that would almost certainly
take place if all of these highly unlikely things did actually
occur, and the spectacle of our representatives defending their
access to health care did actually take place. remember,the MSM
likes to cover a fight more than they like to cover the issues.

has proven that the BULLY PULPIT is a powerful, powerful tool.

Look at the harm Reagan did using the bully pulpit...and with a DEM congress to boot!!

Edwards is running a campaign using a stragtey that has kept him in the top 3. Think about this hijinx87.....Edwards is being OUTSPENT by 300 percent. He has tremendous skill.

My point is....that he has the ability to use the BULLY PULIPT in a positive and constructive way.


His idea is so clear, so simple and resonates so well that the Congress will have to do more than stonewall. And, another thing, Edwards is an accomplished attorney who has experience, one whom I would fully expect to bring foward a well researched, well crafted approach to making Congress do their work.

He will certainly not approch this in a way that will leave such detractors as you, saying "I told you so".

in other threads, so I have to ask how this any different from pandering. When you tell people what they want to hear, when it's designed to stir up emotions and rally a vote for you, and when it's doubtful that what you're pitching will succeed...isn't that classic pandering?

As far as being outspent in Iowa, he's also the only Democratic candidate who hasn't had a full time job since 2004, and the only one who's had any significant time to camp out there and get his organization in place prior to announcing. I think that has to be factored into some of success he's made.

And finally, Edwards himself has very clearly stated that he researched his clients thoroughly and only took cases that he calculated he had a high probablity of winning, so I'm not sure how his private practice successes will translate into Congressional persuasion.

issues.


m Wikipedia,•
A bully pulpit is a public office of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the fore that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity.
This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the American presidency as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which persuasively to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today). A pulpit is the elevated platform used by a preacher. The term has no relationship to the word bully in the sense of a "harasser".
Example: Cornell University's president, David Skorton, called for university presidents to use the "bully pulpit" to advance the humanities. <1>
External links

Time on the ground appears to have trumped massive amounts of $$$ spent, I agree.

I see no reason why Edwards, living the life he has, would have any interest at all in pandering. I do not know how to defend against such a charge as you make suggesting he is "pandering".

I don't hear any other candidate pandering....even those I would not vote for nor support. I part ways with you when you suggest he only tells people what they want to hear.

I chose to hear John Edwards a candidate who is sincere and "gets it" when it comes to the poor, jobs, and health care.

John Edwards has spent his fair share on the wheel of life and would not subject his family, his standing and his legacy by advancing lies just to get elected.

It simply does not wash.

and I only asked what the difference was between that and a bully pulpit. Frankly I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare this pitch by Edwards to the exalted level of T. Roosevelt's bully pulpit, and as the poster below asks, if it's so effective, why doesn't he just use his 'bully pulpit' to directly gain support for universal health care.

Finally, Edwards was touted as the frontrunner in Iowa when the primary started, with Clinton and Obama straggling far behind, so how much success he's had is debatable.

What does "John Edwards has spent his fair share on the wheel of life" mean?

ELECTED OFFICIALS USE TO ADVANCE THEIR PROGRAMS, and is typically a presidential advantage.

Obfuscate all you want......it doesn't wash.

I'm just tired of arguing with you to be honest.

understand the historical meaning of a political term.

Did 'ya even bother to read it?

m Wikipedia,•
A bully pulpit is a public office of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the fore that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity.
This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the American presidency as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which persuasively to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today). A pulpit is the elevated platform used by a preacher. The term has no relationship to the word bully in the sense of a "harasser".
Example: Cornell University's president, David Skorton, called for university presidents to use the "bully pulpit" to advance the humanities. <1>
Ex

(and personally I think it is probably the most overrated abstraction
known to modern politics), and assuming that every single thing that
you are saying is completely true . . . . why would edwards not use
the "bully pulpit" and his formidable ability to change people's minds
to just pass universal health care in the first place, and dispense
with this whole silly sideshow?

Please see post #45.

the meaning of "bully pulpit" perfectly well.

meaning.

nor, in this case, is it.

the meaning of "bully pulpit". I could tell that the
entire subthread was a goner after that. :evilgrin:

Why not just fight for what Americans really want to begin with, and dispense with all these half measures. The answer is quite simple, I think. Edwards simply doesn't believe in a single payer system, but he does believe in using the health care issue to advance his poll numbers. Or alternately, he doesn't care to alienate the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries, given that it would negatively effect his chances of being elected. He's playing both ends against the middle.

When Dennis Kucinich switched from being pro-life to pro-choice before running in 2000, that wasn't just a move to give him a better image amongst the liberal base? Or is everything he does right?

for having done so. I don't agree with everything Kucinich has done, or all the positions he has taken; his anti flag desecration support for instance, or his current position on handguns. I don't especially like his Department of Peace, not because I disagree with what it constitutes, but because I think it's unecessary. I think it woul be enough to inject the ideas behind it into the already extant cabinet departments. I believe in the case of DK's choice position, the transition of his beliefs is evident in his votes for a while before he declared his candidacy. If nothing else, he has always been good about supporting things like sex education, education in general, and has been against the death penalty. Unlike other pro-lifers, his position has been largely beneficent towards those who are already alive, and not simply limited to those who are unborn.

Edwards has certainly shown he can cheerlead with the best of them during his work supporting the IWR, if he does half as much to help pass Healthcare Reform we'll all be alright!

Go Edwards!

:eyes:

This little mini-controversy, provided it's given food and water to grow, will eventually force Edwards to either pull the ad and re-edit it, modify his proposal or simply make him look like a panderer.