Gov. Rendell’s take on State’s Rights and Health Care

Written by Roberta Biros

Regardless of who wins the General Election in November, we can all look forward to Ed Rendell’s reign as Governor ending at the end of 2010. Can I hear an Amen!

Let’s be honest. Governor Rendell is nothing short of a Socialist. Please realize that “Socialist” isn’t a term that I’ve ever used in this blog to describe ANYONE. The term was only used once, and it was used by the Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee (Bob Lark) to describe ME (for a good laugh and some insight on my political background on this topic read HERE), but I’ve never used it to describe anyone else. So understand that I don’t make this remark light-heartedly. I make the statement today in direct response to an interview that Governor Rendell had on Fox News this morning, March 29, 2010.

The topic of the interview on Fox and Friends was “Is it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate that people buy insurance?” Governor Rendell’s response was as follows (and I quote):

“There is no legal question. These lawsuits are frivolous. There is no legal
merit. It’s just grandstanding by Attorney Generals. Why would you want to take
the immediate short-term benefits away from your citizens.”

Governor Rendell went on to explain that this is just a political game being played by the Attorney Generals across the country and in his own state.

If I could talk to Governor Rendell directly I would say . . . “No legal merit? What about the laws that are defined in the single most important document of law in the Country.” I would ask . . . “have you ever heard of the Constitution?” I would probably need to be more specific and expand on my question with . . . “have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?” While you would think that the Governor would be familiar with the Bill of Rights, you really can’t “assume” anything in this case. If I could talk to Governor Rendell I would offer him a pocket edition of the Constitution for reference.

What the Governor fails to understand is that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of our state lawmakers to defend the rights of their constituents in our state. Failure to do so would be a breach of their “contract” with us as our elected officials. His only argument against the constitution is a reference to “short-term benefits”. “Short-term benefits” is the only carrot he could find for his stick. In an attempt to lure people away from the Constitution, Governor Rendell is offering “short-term benefits”.

I am hopeful that after this storm blows through, the Constitution survives . . . intact. Not for the “short-term benefits”, but for the long-term freedom of the people of the United States.

.