The latest crack-pot interpretation of the Constitution to justify Obamacare comes from Rep. John Lewis, who cites the Preamble, the Declaration of Independence, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said on Tuesday that the government should require individuals to buy health insurance and cited the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence’s “pursuit of happiness” language and the 14th Amendment as the sources of Congress’ authority to enact such a mandate.

“I think people should be required to get health insurance. We require people to get insurance for their automobile state by state but the federal government has an obligation to encourage by law, moral persuasion, to get people to get health insurance,” Lewis told CNSNews.com on Tuesday after a House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing in opposition to Republican efforts to repeal the health-care law enacted last year.

…

CNSNews.com also asked Lewis what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance.

“Well, when you start off with the Preamble of the Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of happiness,” said Lewis. “You go to the 14th Amendment–it’s equal protection under the law and we have not repealed the 14th Amendment. People have a right to have health care. It’s not a privilege but a right.”

First of all, law is not “moral persuasion,” it is force. But let’s look at the Congressman’s theory, taking each relevant text one at a time. Here’s the Preamble of the Constitution:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

There are no grants of authority in the Preamble. Rather, it makes an affirmative case for the existence of government at all. It explains why they are doing what they are doing in signing any Constitution in the first place. This was important given the context of the founding of the U.S., and the desire of the Founders to establish a legal government with the consent of the governed. They were establishing a contrast with divine right, the historical justification of government until that point. So there is nothing useful to be gained by citing the Preamble as a source for a specific governmental action. It provides none.

Strike one.

Next, the relevant section from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As before, the Declaration establishes no specific authority for governmental action. Nevertheless, it is an important tool for understanding the purpose and scope of our government, so let’s go ahead address his claim contextually.

This sentence is clearly describing the natural rights of man as they exist prior to government – specifically, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with the latter right being historically interpreted to refer to rights of property. It means much more than just that, describing man’s right to live for himself and pursue the improvement of his station toward whatever goals please him. But in terms of constraining government force, protection of property rights serves as a means to protect the pursuit of happiness.

Regardless, it doesn’t really matter what ‘pursuit of happiness’ means in this context, because the sentence is not describing a source of government power, but a restraint upon it. These natural rights are said to exist before government, and therefore anything government tries to do cannot be justified by this clause alone, it can only be contradicted by it. As if this weren’t obvious enough by the plain meaning of the words, the fact that it was used to throw off an oppressive government should make it clear. It says simply: these are the rights that man has without government, and any legitimate government must recognize as such and not infringe upon them; to do so is to render said government illegitimate.

Strike two.

Finally, we come to the actual source of specific legislative actions, the Constitution. The 14th Amendment contains five sections, but it really only comes down to one. First, the text:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

As you can see, Sections 2-4 are completely irrelevant, while Section 5 only authorizes legislation based on the authority of the other sections. That leaves us with Section 1, the last chance for Rep. Lewis to find even the slightest shred of authority for an individual insurance mandate needed to avoid complete embarrassment.

The first sentence is again irrelevant, as it deals with citizenship. Very little is left now, so surely Rep. Lewis’ authority must reside herein.  But what’s this? There’s no source of new governmental powers there! All the remainder of the section does is restrict the power of the state governments. Here it is again, with phrases in bold:  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These are all constraints on state governments, passed to prevent state level infractions of Constitutional rights.  Section 5, the sole instance in anything he cited of an actual grant of legislative authority, merely authorizes Congress to legislatively enforce these constraints on the states.

Strike three.

There’s whiffing and then there’s whiffing big time, and this was big time. I’d be hard pressed to pick three more irrelevant clauses to health care legislation than Rep. Lewis has done here.

How sad it is that John Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement and a man who has come to symbolize the importance of restraints on the ability of governments to violate rights, has so thoroughly failed to understand the source of the protections he now enjoys.