Why Sarah Steelman Clearly isn't a Tea Party Candidate: Social Security and Medicare Aren't Constitutional

Constitutionally Clueless

Since I moved back to Missouri, I have heard so many from Southwest Missouri hoot and holler when it comes to Sarah Steelman, a candidate for US Senate. Having heard her speak a few times in person combined with interviews and endorsements like the one that follows has me wondering why so many conservatives get excited when it comes to Steelman.



As Dr. John Lily, who heads the Young Conservatives, a southwest Missouri grassroots movement, prepares to award Steelman with an award from the organization, I scratch my head asking this obvious question. Sarah Steelman--CONSERVATIVE? Let me give you another reason why she isn't, and let this be something the Tea Party takes note of, because Steelman's recent comments on Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare shows just how out of touch Steelman is with the founder's vision of limited federal government, especially when you consider programs that came out of Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society have paved the way for Obamacare.

When asked about Obamacare, Medicare, and Social Security, Steelman made the following statement:

"I believe Medicare and Social Security to be constitutional. And I believe very strongly that Obamacare is unconstitutional. I will not vote or support anything unconstitutional," Steelman said in a statement.

In other words, Steelman believes the Federal Government should provide healthcare and a retirement plan despite her claim she is a conservative and for limited government. Yet, our Constitution gives any member of Congress any authority to provide these programs, whether it be Obamacare or Medicare, that continue to break the Treasury. In other words, Steelman must have adopted Claire McCaskill's definition of the General Welfare clause in order to pander to voters. Shame on you Ms. Steelman. The Young Conservatives should cancel your award presentation at once with your support of big government.

Like so many other power-hungry idiots that desire to get to Washington, Steelman has obviously not paid much attention to Federalist #41, which just so happens defines the General Welfare clause. James Madison didn't write about Great Society social welfare programs or New Deal retirement programs when he reported back to his colony what was taking place as the Founding Fathers were drafting a Constitution to create this great Republic. Rather, he explains the General Welfare as coming down to some basic ideas that eventually give Congress 18 limited powers, which you can examine for yourself by turning your pocket Constitution to Article One Section Eight.

James Madison gave six provisions which defines the General Welfare which eventually became the basis for the 18 enumerated powers. Madison writes:

1. Security against foreign danger.
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations.
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States.
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility.
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts.
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

No where in these six provisions is the idea the federal government is allowed to confiscate money from its people in order to create federal medical or retirement entitlements. In other words, Sarah Steelman is wrong, which too means she is clueless as to what the true Tea Party stands for. The federal government doesn't have the authority to confiscate money from its people to provide socialized medicine and socialized retirement plans approved by both presidential dolts Roosevelt and Johnson. Of course it doesn't have the authority to force its people to engage in commerce to increase the federal presence in medical care.

The very fact Steelman claims Social Security and Medicare is Constitutional shows she is as clueless as she obviously appears in the above video as to who gets the sweater in a free trade discussion.

Tea Party beware. Sarah Steelman isn't one of us. If Steelman makes a successful bid, it will be hard to defeat Obamacare based on her illogical thinking. If the government has the right to provide Social Security and Medicare as Steelman believes, then why doesn't it have the right to provide Obamacare too. The IRS's gun will be pointed at you confiscating your money in all three scenarios, the only difference is how your money is confiscated.