THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 56 - SHE WOULDN'T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT KISSED HER ON HER LYING MOUTH

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Lynn Jenkins wouldn't know the truth if it walked up to her, looked deeply into her eyes, and gave her a long tender kiss on that lying mouth of hers. She just lacks the capacity to discern and convey truth. She is full out, and in the terms of steam technology, balls to wall when it comes to spewing propaganda.

Jenkins represents the problem with Washington. Rather than be honest about the contents of any given law, or bill, or proposal, our Members of Congress go straight to lobbyist prepared talking points. The cadre of spin doctors frame the debate so that future campaign funds can be solicited.

Take a look at OpenSecrets.org. Look up Lynn Jenkins. Look at the tens of thousands of dollars she gets from Health Insurance Companies. Then weigh that cash against her votes. When it comes to serving the people of the Second Congressional District she comes up short. When it comes to serving the richest of the rich, serving the corporate interests, and following the party line Jenkins is a super star.

Today Lynn Jenkins left a questionnaire in my e mail. She asks  "Do you support the repeal of the new Government run health care package?" And that question my friends is a pile of pure propagandized poop, because America does not have a new Government run health care package to repeal.

From today's Washington Post:

"Certainly, the law bolsters government regulation of the health-care system, such as forcing insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people who have existing medical conditions. People who do not have insurance will be required to buy it. But the core of the health-care system in the United States will remain the private insurance market."

Read the full article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/18/AR2011011806519.html.

Another tidbit about Jenkins' survey is the requirement to subscribe to her newsletter. Consider that as she cites the results of the poll. She is primarily polling her base. Polls lacking proper statistical foundation are good only for the purposes of propaganda.

The other day I told a friend that I'd like to be represented in Congress by someone like Gabby Giffords of Tucson. When asked why I had to explain that Giffords, unlike Jenkins, has half a brain. How true it is.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 40 - HER RECORD ON MEDICARE

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Site Meters tells this blog of a recent visitor from Clifton, Kansas who was interested in Lynn Jenkins record on Medicare. That's a great inquiry, so let's take a look.

House Concurrent Resolution 85 established the Congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including appropriate budgetary levels for F.Y. 2009 and for F.Y. 2011 through 2014. So what's that got to do with Medicare?

Section 314of the resolution establishes the current policy reserve fund for Medicare improvements. That's important because this §314 is an essential component of reforming the Medicare payment formula. This section mandates changes incentives to encourage efficiency and higher quality care in a way that supports fiscal sustainability. It calls for improving payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of resources and ensure that primary care receives appropriate compensation. It requires improvement of coordination of care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate settings. Finally it seeks to hold providers accountable for their utilization patterns and quality of care. Lynn Jenkins voted no on H.Con.Res. 85 on roll call vote 192, April 2, 2009.

H.R. 3962 the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, is now Public Law 111-192. This new law provides for a Medicare physician payment rate update and provides single and multiple employer pension plan sponsors with relief from pension funding requirements.

Lynn Jenkins voted no on H.R. 3962 on roll call vote 887, November 7, 2003. She voted yes on the measure roll call vote 393, June 24, 2010. That was on resolving differences with the Senate version of the bill. The final vote was 417 to 1.

Another case of where Lynn Jenkins was against it before she was for it is H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 , now Public Law 111-141. On original passage in the House Lynn Jenkins voted against H.R. 3961, that was roll call vote 909 on November 19, 2009. When it came to resolving differences with the Senate, she was again on board. The final margin was 315 to 97, on roll call vote 67, February 27, 2009.

H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, now Public Law 111-3, is more commonly known as SCHIP, This is the part of Medicare that provides for health insurance for the neediest children. This law expanded coverage to include all children whose families were at or below 300% of the poverty line, up from 200%. Lynn Jenkins voted no on H.R. 2 first on roll call vote 16, January 14,2009; then again on roll call vote 50, February 4, 2009. Jenkins argued that the top third of those children should be excluded. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

H.R. 598,was a bill to provide for a portion of the economic recovery package relating to revenue measures, unemployment, and health, which became Public Law 111-5 on 2/17/2009, and is known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This applies to Medicare because this is where incentives are provided to physicians and hospitals using the electronic health record (EHR) and reduce payments to those who continue using paper. This EHR is using technology to reduce overhead costs in the administration of Medicare. H.R. 598 became Title IV of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Lynn Jenkins voted no Public Law 111-5, first on roll call vote 46, January 28, 2009 and then on roll call vote 70 on February 13, 2009.

H.R. 4691, The Temporary Extension Act of 2010, now Public Law 111-144, made technical corrections to Medicare physician payment update, by delaying the increase to physicians by a month. The bill also extended the Medicare therapy caps exceptions process by three months. This measure passed the House by a voice vote.

The bottom line on Lynn Jenkins is that she voted to obstruct Medicare until the final vote. She voted to deny health insurance coverage to America's neediest children. She voted against modernizing Medicare when she voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

But there is more. The shameful propaganda in which she claimed that Health Care Reform would slash $500 Billion from Medicare, as though seniors would see a half a trillion dollar cut in benefits from Medicare. That wasn't the case. As reported on this blog Wednesday June 30th, That money is a reduction in the growth of future spending over t0 years. That money will not have to be spent because advancements in technology and elimination of waste and fraud.

Lynn Jenkins voted against Health Care Reform. If you are a senior looking at that doughnut hole then you were probably glad to see that $250 supplemental check this summer to help you through the hole. Don't thank Lynn Jenkins, she voted against it.

Lynn Jenkins likes to say how health care could be done correctly. Her votes tell us she speaking with a forked tongue. Lynn Jenkins was one of only 19 Representatives who voted against eliminating the anti-trust exemption for Health Insurance Companies.

When it comes to Medicare, Lynn Jenkins stirs the pot but comes up with last minute votes that lets her say supported the program. She's got a harder time with Veterans. Remember she voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5136, which languishes in the Senate.




THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 26 - SHE FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE REAL COST OF NOT HAVING HEALTH CARE REFORM.

The Cost of Not Having Health Insurance

The real cost of health care reform, the cost we need not pay, is 80 lives lost. 

From the Congressional Record came this stunning report. 

[Congressional Record: November 4, 2009 (House)]

[Page H12350-H12352]

From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:cr04no09-135]

THE COST OF NOT HAVING HEALTH CARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) is recognized
for 60 minutes.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, our

[[Page H12351]]

President, often pardoned people who had been convicted of treason. You may wonder why he did that. The answer is he saw death all around him in the Civil War, and he wanted to make sure he did nothing to add to it, so he pardoned people who had been found guilty of the most grievous crime one could commit in this country simply because he loved life.

In the same way, I would like to think whether I leave here after 2 years or 20 years, that there will be no blood on my hands. That is why I am against the war in Iraq, that is why I am against the war in Afghanistan, and that is why I am so much in favor of health care reform that saves lives in America.

We had a different kind of President for 8 years recently, and we had a different kind of administration, an administration that was willing to bear any degree of suffering and pain as long as it was somebody else's. If you were homeless, it was your fault; if you were jobless, it was your fault; and if you died because you had no health insurance, that was your fault.

Now that administration is out of power. We, the American people, removed them because they abused it. But they have left behind in the House and in the Senate people who feel much the way that they did.Recently, a Harvard study published in a peer review journal, the American Journal of Public Health, announced that 44,789 Americans die every single year because they have no health insurance.In America today, if you find two people who are physically identical, same race, same age, same gender, same smoking habits, same weight, if you find two people who are physically identical, and one of them has insurance and the other one does not, then the one without insurance, that American who has the misfortune simply not to have health coverage, that American is 40 percent more likely to die.

This bill that we are considering now to reform health care in America would end that. It covers 96 percent of all Americans. It ends this grievous national tragedy where, day after day, week after week, month after month, 122 of us die every single day because they have no health insurance.

Now, I am sure that if we learned that al Qaeda was going to launch an attack on the United States and kill 44,789 Americans at any time next year, I am sure that we would do anything in our power to prevent that. I submit to you we should do the same about this. We should do exactly the same here, because we face the same threat. It is a less visible threat, it has gone on for generations, but it is a threat nevertheless. If you don't let people see the doctor, then a certain number of them are going to die.

To bring this point home in the face of united opposition by that side of the aisle, what we have done is something very simple. The Urban Institute has published the number of uninsured people in each district, each congressional district in this country. The American Journal of Public Health has told us what percentage of those uninsured people will die next year because they have no health insurance. So what we have done is very simple. We have taken one number and the other number, and through the magic of multiplication, we know how many of those people will die, and I think it is time we called attention to that.

So what we have done is for each Republican Member, since they are united in opposition to this bill, and apparently proud of it, for each Republican Member we have identified in each district the number of dead.  They are as follows:

Alabama District 1, Congressman Jo Bonner, 114 dead.
Alabama District 3, Congressman Mike Rogers, 88 dead.
Alabama District 4, Congressman Robert Aderholt, 114 dead.
Alabama District 6, Congressman Spencer Bachus, 69 dead.
Alaska, Congressman Don Young, 128 dead.
Arizona, District 2, Congressman Trent Franks, 150 dead.
Arizona District 3, Congressman John Shadegg, 132 dead.
Arizona District 6, Congressman Jeff Flake, 140 dead.
Arkansas District 3, Congressman John Boozman, 151 dead.
California District 2, Congressman Wally Herger, 139 dead.
California District 3, Congressman Daniel Lungren, 68 dead.
California District 4, Congressman Tom McClintock, 77 dead.
California District 19, Congressman George Radanovich, 124 dead.
California District 21, Congressman Devin Nunes, 159 dead.
California District 22, Congressman Kevin McCarthy, 110 dead.
California District 24, Congressman Elton Gallegly, 75 dead.
California District 25, Congressman Howard McKeon, 124 dead.
California District 26, Congressman David Dreier, 85 dead.
California District 40, Congressman Edward Royce, 125 dead.
California District 41, Congressman Jerry Lewis, 144 dead.
California District 42, Congressman Gary Miller, 74 dead.
California District 44, Congressman Ken Calvert, 150 dead.
California District 45, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, 181 dead.
California District 46, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, 78 dead.
California District 48, Congressman John Campbell, 74 dead.
California District 49, Congressman Darrell Issa, 151 dead.
California District 50, Congressman Brian Bilbray, 103 dead.
California District 52, Congressman Duncan Hunter, 84 dead.
Colorado District 5, Congressman Doug Lamborn, 107 dead.
Colorado District 6, Congressman Mike Coffman, 69 dead.
Delaware, Congressman Mike Castle, 90 dead.
Florida District 1, Congressman Jeff Miller, 130 dead.
Florida District 4, Congressman Ander Crenshaw, 116 dead.
Florida District 5, Congressman Ginny Brown-Waite, 200 dead.
Florida District 6, Congressman Cliff Stearns, 152 dead.
Florida District 7, Congressman John Mica, 143 dead.
Florida District 9, Congressman Gus Bilirakis, 129 dead.
Florida District 10, Congressman Bill Young, 138 dead.
Florida District 12, Congressman Adam Putnam, 133 dead.
Florida District 13, Congressman Vern Buchanan, 160 dead.
Florida District 14, Congressman Connie Mack, 159 dead.
Florida District 15, Congressman Bill Posey, 152 dead.
Florida District 16, Congressman Thomas Rooney, 165 dead.
Florida District 18, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 199 dead.
Florida District 21, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, 195 dead.
Florida District 25, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, 195 dead.
Georgia District 1, Congressman Jack Kingston, 123 dead.
Georgia District 3, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, 102 dead.
Georgia District 6, Congressman Tom Price, 100 dead.
Georgia District 7, Congressman John Linder, 156 dead.
Georgia District 9, Congressman Nathan Deal, 159 dead.
Georgia District 10, Congressman Paul Broun, 120 dead.
Georgia District 11, Congressman Phil Gingrey, 113 dead.
Idaho District 2, Congressman Michael Simpson, 126 dead.
Illinois District 6, Congressman Peter Roskam, 73 dead.
Illinois District 10, Congressman Mark Kirk, 55 dead.
Illinois District 13, Congresswoman Judy Biggert, 45 dead.
Illinois District 15, Congressman Timothy Johnson, 67 dead.
Illinois District 16, Congressman Donald Manzullo, 69 dead.
Illinois District 18, Congressman Aaron Schock, 62 dead.
Illinois District 19, Congressman John Shimkus, 67 dead.
Indiana District 3, Congressman Mark Souder, 119 dead.
Indiana District 4, Congressman Steve Buyer, 85 dead.
Indiana District 5, Congressman Dan Burton, 73 dead.
Indiana District 6, Congressman Mike Pence, 104 dead.
Iowa District 4, Congressman Tom Latham, 54 dead.
Iowa District 5, Congressman Steve King, 59 dead.
[[Page H12352]]
Kansas District 1, Congressman Jerry Moran, 86 dead.
Kansas District 2, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, 80 dead.
Kansas District 4, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, 87 dead.
Kentucky District 1, Congressman Ed Whitfield, 113 dead.
Kentucky District 2, Brett Guthrie, 102 dead.
Kentucky District 4, Geoff Davis, Congressman, 83 dead.
Kentucky District 5, Congressman Harold Rogers, 130 dead.
Louisiana District 1, Congressman Steve Scalise, 111 dead.
Louisiana District 2, Congressman Joseph Cao, 98 dead.
Louisiana District 4, Congressman John Fleming, 115 dead.
Louisiana District 5, Congressman Rodney Alexander, 132 dead.
Louisiana District 6, Congressman Bill Cassidy, 105 dead.
Louisiana District 7, Congressman Charles Boustany, 112 dead.
Maryland District 6, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, 68 dead.
Michigan District 2, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, 71 dead.
Michigan District 3, Congressman Vernon Ehlers, 76 dead.
Michigan District 4, Congressman David Camp, 83 dead.
Michigan District 6, Congressman Fred Upton, 87 dead.
Michigan District 8, Mike Rogers, Congressman, 63 dead.
Michigan District 10, Candice Miller, Congresswoman, 64 dead.
Michigan District 11, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, 64 dead.
Minnesota District 2, Congressman John Kline, 44 dead.
Minnesota District 3, Congressman Erik Paulsen, 43 dead.
Minnesota District 6, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 50 dead.
Mississippi District 3, Congressman Gregg Harper, 117 dead.
Missouri District 2, Congressman Todd Akin, 48 dead.
Missouri District 6, Congressman Sam Graves, 74 dead.
Missouri District 7, Congressman Roy Blunt, 120 dead.
Missouri District 8, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, 110 dead.
Missouri District 9, Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer, 78 dead.
Montana, Congressman Denny Rehberg, 179 dead.
Nebraska District 1, Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, 61 dead.
Nebraska District 2, Congressman Lee Terry, 68 dead.
Nebraska District 3, Congressman Adrian Smith, 69 dead.
Nevada District 2, Congressman Dean Heller, 172 dead.
New Jersey District 2, Congressman Frank LoBiondo, 71 dead.
New Jersey District 4, Congressman Chris Smith, 65 dead.
New Jersey District 5, Congressman Scott Garrett, 52 dead.
New Jersey District 7, Congressman Leonard Lance, 45 dead.
New Jersey District 11, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, 44 dead.
New York District 3, Congressman Peter King, 42 dead.
New York District 26, Congressman Christopher Lee, 40 dead.
North Carolina District 3, Congressman Walter Jones, 100 dead.
North Carolina District 5, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, 97 dead.
North Carolina District 6, Congressman Howard Coble, 103 dead.
North Carolina District 9, Congresswoman Sue Myrick, 82 dead.
North Carolina District 10, Congressman Patrick McHenry, 101 dead.
Ohio District 2, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, 69 dead.
Ohio District 3, Congressman Michael Turner, 78 dead.
Ohio District 4, Congressman Jim Jordan, 74 dead.
Ohio District 5, Congressman Robert Latta, 59 dead.
Ohio District 7, Congressman Steve Austria, 73 dead.
Ohio District 8, Congressman John Boehner, 70 dead.
Ohio District 12, Congressman Patrick Tiberi, 66 dead.
Ohio District 14, Congressman Steven LaTourette, 58 dead.
Oklahoma District 1, Congressman John Sullivan, 125 dead.
Oklahoma District 3, Congressman Frank Lucas, 128 dead.
Oklahoma District 4, Congressman Tom Cole, 121 dead.
Oklahoma District 5, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, 155 dead.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 19 - SHE FINDS TRUTH A STRANGER IN THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE WHILE TRYINGTO SCARE SENIORS AND VETERANS

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Lynn Jenkins hasn't told the truth about Health Care Reform. On the floor of the House she made outlandish claims that Health Care Reform was a plan that increases premium costs for Kansas families by more than $2,100 annually. That's both wrong and deceptive. According to FactCheck.Org premiums for those in Group Plans remains largely the same. Those who buy Individual Plans will see an increase of 10% to 13%. That's because those with individual plans will get a better package of benefits.

Scaring old folks ought to be a crime, and Lynn Jenkins should be tried and convicted of fear mongering among senior citizens. Ironically seniors give her a lot of money. Contributing to Lynn Jenkins must be like geezers paying to go to a haunted house! Only her votes are real!

Lynn Jenkins said Health Care Reform cuts Medicare by more than $520 billion. Well, back to FactCheck.Org, they said " Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits.

It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage."

On taxes Lynn Jenkins' claim was that this new law increases taxes by nearly $570 billion. The St. Petersburg Times' Politicfact.com looked at the tax consequences of the new law. No doubt we have to pay for this bill, but it isn't $570 billion. Politicfact.com says In all, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates various revenue-generating provisions in the health bill will bring $437 billion over the next 10 years. That's the kind of $133 billion error I wouldn't think a C.P.A. would make, yet Lynn Jenkins did!

The St. Petersburg Times' Politicfact.com reported that according to Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, thinks it makes the most sense to look at the last year of the 10-year CBO projections for the health care reform bill. By then, the plan is fully phased in, including the full effect of all the tax cuts and tax hikes. In that year, the total revenue increase is estimated to be $104 billion. That comes to a little less than 1/2 percent of the projected GDP that year.

Horney notes that that's slightly smaller than the tax effect in the fifth years of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (a tax increase signed by President George H.W. Bush) and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (a tax increase signed by President Bill Clinton), as a percentage of the GDP at the time. And it's less than half of the tax increase (again as a percentage of GDP) from the Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act signed by President Ronald Reagan.

Lynn Jenkins fear mongering on Health Care Reform includes demagoging our Veterans. She said this "plan that, according to the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, is ``betraying America's veterans.''

That just isn't so. I turned to the Denver Post for the truth on this one. They reported that these claims are false. "The bill was never written to affect benefits for veterans, and the amendments have clarified that. Veterans receiving health care benefits from government programs will not be penalized under mandates that exist in the current version of the House bill."

Lynn Jenkins harps that the majority of Americans don't want Health Care Reform. She's going all strange with her math. A New York Times CBS News Poll showed that Health Care Reform was favored by 72% and opposed by 20%. That was a June 2009 poll. Polls around the time of the bill's passage showed a closer margin with those opposing in the majority. What Lynn Jenkins doesn't tell you, or hasn't figured out is that 40% of those opposing were against the bill because it didn't go far enough.

H.R. 5136 EXPANDS HEALTHCARE REFORM FEATURE TO TRICARE

A couple of days ago I read a story from the Washington Post "Popular benefit of health-care law excludes military families" by David Hilzenwrath. That link is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052501685.html.

In all the anxiety surrounding the debate about Health Care Reform military families were concerned that they'd lose the good plan they already have, TRICARE. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates requested Congress exclude military families and TRICARE from the overhaul.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

It turns out that "Obamacare," as the Republicans are want to call Health Care Reform, isn't so bad as the Health Insurance/Republican propaganda said it was. Now America's military families are wanting to get some of what the rest of the nation's families got.

Remember the problem that occurred in the coverage of American young adults. When they were 18 and not in school their health care was being canceled by the insurance industry. I remember on particularly painful incident involving former Kansas City Royal, Fred Patek. Patek's daughter, Kimberly. was no longer on the family's plan and her coverage had not yet begun. She was paralyzed in an automobile accident. The bills were massive. Several fundraisers were held to assist in paying those fees.

Under Health Care Reform that can't happen anymore. American families are seeing the benefit of their college age kids not being put at risk by the insurance industry. Military families rightly want the same.

That takes us back to H.R. 5136, the Defense Appropriation Bill. Specifically Section 708 titled "EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE UNDER TRICARE." This will cover the older military "brats" until they reach age 26 unless they can enroll in an eligible employer-sponsored plan.

For those who want to read chapter and verse of the TRICARE expansion, link up at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111rb7Dp6:e369786: or link to Thomas.gov and search using the keyword TRICARE or the bill number H.R. 5136.

Representative Martin Heinrich

The Washington Post reports that the TRICARE expansion amendment to this bill was proposed by New Mexico's Democratic Representative Martin Heinrich. Heinrich is from Albuquerque and is a freshman in the Congress.

H.R. 5136 was before the House last night in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, to make amendments.  If you want to see our elected leaders acting like adults with true bipartisan effort, you should see them pass one of Ike Skelton's bills.  H.R. 5136 remains as unfinished business, last night was all about making amendments.

Sexual Predators, Whigs, The Constitution, & Health Care Reform

The Supreme Court

Once upon a time in a burgeoning new city on the banks of the Potomac River reigned the short lived administration of President William Henry Harrison. Harrison would be pleased today, all the long dead Whigs rest easy today, because the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the broad expanse of the Congress in enacting laws which are "Necessary and Proper" (U.S. Constitution Article I. §8, Clause 18. The Whigs wanted broad legislative control of the federal government as opposed to strong executive powers prevailing in the affairs of state.

The case is called United States v. Comstock, et al, and was handed down May 17, 2010. It is a case asking if the Congress exceeded its authority when it said that the government may hold mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond the dates those convicts would otherwise have been released. The convicts are subjected to civil commitments pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4248

Civil Libertarians may be aghast at this decision. I am not. Folks who go out and terrorize women and children, place whole communities on edge, steal the flower of innocent youth, often leaving dead, and always leaving wrecked lives in the wake of their conduct are sick persons. Society does not need to tolerate their illness.

Due Process of Law is not violated in these cases. Each person subjected to civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. §4248 gets a hearing, is provided counsel if he or she is indigent, is allowed to raise a defense. The hearings are not sham pretenses of the law, these are held in federal courts. Due Process is satisfied. Well, that's my opinion as the Supreme Court did not reach these issues in this case.

At first blush America's new political movement, the Tea Party folks, might think that this is a well decided case, which it is. Hold your Constant Comment, Nellie. You might want to actually read a case before you get all giddy with glee at the result!

The first thing about which to take notice is the level of scrutiny the courts will apply to cases of this sort. As a rule of thumb the higher the level of scrutiny the courts employ then it is more likely the complaining party will win. The converse is likewise true, the lower the level of scrutiny the courts employ then the less likely the complaining party will win. As the level of scrutiny rises the government is required to more narrowly tailor its actions to achieve the desired goal.

This case does not apply a high level of scrutiny test. It applies a low level of scrutiny called the "means-ends" test. The Court, relying on precedent said:
The Constitution “addresse[s]” the “choice of means” “primarily . . . to the judgment of Congress. If it can be seen that the means adopted are really calculated to attain the end, the degree of their necessity, the extent to which they conduce to the end, the closeness of the relationship between the means adopted and the end to be attained, are matters for congressional determination alone.” Burroughs v. United States, 290 U. S. 534, 547–548

Then the Court marches down the heart of Tea Party thought by explaining this opinion in terms of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since these convicts may also be wanted on State charges, those advocating a Tenth Amendment violation say the feds must release the convict and let the State take over.

The heart of the Court's opinion lays at the intersection of the Necessary & Proper Clause and the Tenth Amendment. The Court rules that: That Amendment does not 'reserve to the States' those powers that are 'delegated to the United States by the Constitution,' including the powers delegated by the Necessary and Proper Clause."

In the exacting atmosphere of Supreme Court advocacy the advocates of the Tenth Amendment argued that even if the Necessary & Proper clause applied, its reach could not extend so far as does 18 U.S.C. §4248, Don't get lippy with the Lipton, Nellie, this may not be as much fun as you think!

The Court rejected the argument that the Congress must remain no more than one step removed from a specifically enumerated power when legislating pursuant to the Necessary & Proper Clause. The Court relied on well established law, citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 ,416, 481 (1819). For a sense of perspective, James Monroe was the President when McCulloch was decided.

The Respondents, arguing a State Sovereignty theory, claimed that the Congress could not invade the province of state sovereignty in an area typically left to State control. They got shut down but good.

The Court said that the Tenth "Amendment does not “reserve to the States” those powers that are “delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” including the powers delegated by the Necessary and Proper Clause. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 159. And §4248 does not “invade” state sovereignty, but rather requires accommodation of state interests."

Whoa, Nellie! Put your tea cozy down because the door to the Tenth Amendment just started closing. While the Tea Party folk may not like what the Court said, the spirits of Whigs rest easy with this decision.

In fact the Tea Party folk were left with only one peg upon which to hang their hopes. The Court expressly refused to make a grant of "police powers" to the federal government. The Wikipedia explanation of police powers will suffice. "Police power is the capacity of a state to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of general welfare, morals, health, and safety."

And why is that important you ask? Because Republicans fueled with Tea Party zeal and corporate cash are planning a full frontal assault on the recently passed and enacted Health Care Reform legislation, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.

You see if Health Care Reform was passed pursuant to the Necessary & Proper Clause, and if it only requires an accommodation of sovereign state interests, then it may be crucial if the Court sees Health Care as a primary function of the sovereign States. Otherwise put, was Health Care Reform an invasion of authority delegated to the States by the Tenth Amendment?  My guess is that the Court won't reach this point because the primary issue will rest on taxation.

Justice Souter

The opinion in United States v. Comstock, et al, was written by Justice Souter, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. Justices Kennedy and Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia partially joined.

For those who are counting, on the question of the authority of the federal government to enact legislation under the Necessary & Proper Clause despite strong Tenth Amendment arguments, the vote is 7 to 2.  What do you want to bet that Elena Kagan, Obama's choice to replace Justice Stevens on the high bench will get quizzed on the nexus of Necessary & Proper and the Tenth Amendment?

Elena Kagan

That looks very good for Health Care Reform.