More evidence that for Democrats, the “Constitution” means whatever they are in favor of at the moment: New York’s Attorney General says it is unconstitutional to repeal Obamacare:
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a longtime critic of his fellow Empire State resident [Donald Trump], tells Erin Burnett he’s planning a lawsuit should the legislation be signed into law.
“If they pass the bill in the form the House passed it, it is unconstitutional,” he said on Friday’s edition CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.”
Calling it “bad public policy”…
Earth to Schneiderman: “bad public policy” is not unconstitutional.
…that will ultimately “cost millions of people health care,” Schneiderman takes particular issue with the impact the bill will have on women.
The Democrats immediately default to one of their purported victim groups when they pretend to be talking about the Constitution. Where, exactly, is the clause in the Constitution that says the federal government has to pay for women’s health care? Or anyone’s?
“This is an effort to cut off funding for breast cancer screenings, education on sexual-transmitted disease,” he noted, adding that “it imposes an undue burden on women’s constitutional rights.”
I think he is talking about Planned Parenthood, although it is pretty universally known that Planned Parenthood does not, in fact, carry out breast cancer screenings.
But so what? If it is unconstitutional to cut funding for that purpose, for what purpose would it not be unconstitutional to cut funding? Defense, I suppose. And since when is it an “undue burden” to–the horror!–pay your own bills?
Schneiderman’s argument that Obamacare is constitutionally mandated implies that the federal government was in violation of some unspecified term of the Constitution from 1791 until 2010 by virtue of the lack of Obamacare. Or maybe this invisible clause of the “living” Constitution didn’t spring into being by spontaneous generation until 2010. Only a liberal could take such nonsense seriously.
Schneiderman’s argument is, as a legal matter, idiotic. But in the era of fake law, it isn’t hard to shop for a left-wing judge who will go along with any frivolous argument in order to generate anti-President Trump headlines, as the liberals did with the president’s travel order. But I suspect that even for those partisans, finding a constitutional right to Obamacare would be a bridge too far.