In the last two Republican presidential debates Michelle Bachmann has declared that a State has no authority to require it's citizens to purchase a good, i.e. healthcare as in Massachusetts.  She is absolutely wrong and it is quite frankly embarrassing that as a lawyer she does not know our constitutional framework of government while passing herself off as a guardian of the Constitution and the "Tea Party" candidate.

The Federal Constitution is a limited framework of government specifically defining what the federal government can and cannot do.  The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the States and to the people ALL powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.  This is so basic a concept that I cringe whenever the congresswoman declares otherwise.  The power to compel a citizen to purchase a good or service is not within the Commerce Clause power of the Federal Constition, but that does not imply or mean that a State does not have that power. 

Remember, at the passage of the Constitution several of the States had state religions.  This did not violate the First Amendment because the Bill of Rights only applied to the newly formed federal government and not the states.  The application of the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine has changed the original framework, but even that argument does not help the congresswoman with her erroneous interpretation of law.

As a matter of natural law no state or sovereign should compel the purchase of a good or service as a condition of citizenship.  To do so makes one a slave or servant of the state.  However, what is improper as a matter of natural law is different than whether, under our republican form of constitutional government a State can compel such action.  If the people of a state think it is improper to enforce such a mandate then they need to amend their state constitution to prohibit the state from exercising that authority. The rules of the constitutional road are really rather simple if we would just endeavor to apply them.

During a recent interview on this topic the Congresswoman was asked where in the Federal Constitution a State is prohibited from mandating the purchase of healthcare.  She fumbled with an answer and only when pressed said it is "inherent" in the Constitution.  It is progressive jurists believing in a "living and breathing" constitution who find things "inherent" in it, such as the right of privacy which gave us Roe v. Wade.  

When she said this last night at the Tea Party sponsored debate and the audience loudly applauded, I realized that there is much work and education that still needs to be done. It is simply not good enough for her to say she will take a copy of the Constitution with her into the Oval Office should she by elected President. She must read and understand it first.   I like Mrs. Bachmann personally, and I cheered for her at her appearance at Angie's Subs.  It does not help the cause of limited constitutional government however for her, in an attempt to score points against political opponents, to misstate such fundamental components of the system of government established by the Founders.