This page was last updated on March 30, 2010.
King Tom; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 30, 2010.
The Times temper tantrum aside, perhaps these folks need to review their grade school class in Pennsylvania government.
The editorial says, “Sorry, but the last time we checked, Pennsylvania was still a representative democracy, not a monarchy.” Perhaps the editorial board forgot, but we the voters elected Mr. Corbett and according to Article IV, Section 4.1 of the PA Constitution, the AG “shall be the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law.”
The editorial goes on to ask, “What gives Corbett the right to speak for the commonwealth’s 12.4 million residents on this issue, especially when its ramifications are so significant for the uninsured? Who does he think he is to usurp the General Assembly’s elected duty to represent the people of Pennsylvania?” Well, in addition to being elected by “the commonwealth’s 12.4 million residents,” the oath of office taken by the AG - as well as the Governor and members of the General Assembly - is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.” Does the Times really expect us to believe the AG needs to ask permission of the GA to carry out his constitution-defined responsibilities as “chief law officer of the Commonwealth?” Does anyone doubt we would see a similar editorial even if the GA initiated the lawsuit and not the AG?
Further, shouldn’t the Times to support the action? Remember, Obamacare includes a bunch of unfunded/underfunded mandates and the editorial board has consistently opposed unfunded/underfunded mandates. Perhaps the best example is “Bad deal” of April 24, 2005. Consider the final paragraphs of that editorial.
“More Americans are starting to wake up to the fact that this is what is happening under President Bush’s No Child Left Behind act. The federal government is ordering costly changes in education but not coming through with the money to pay for them. But like Uncle Sam, it brags about its generosity.
“The Associated Press reports the National Education Association and nine school districts in Michigan, Vermont and Texas, plus 10 NEA chapters in those states and Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah, are suing the Bush administration. They want to free the districts from complying with any part not paid for by the federal government.
“Lawmakers in Utah have gone one step farther. They voted last week to put their state’s educational goals ahead of the federal law despite the possible loss of $76 million. Connecticut is planning its own lawsuit.
“More states need to rise up against this underfunded mandate.”
Substitute “Obamacare” for “President Bush’s No Child Left Behind act” and “healthcare” for “education” in the above editorial excerpt and what’s the difference in the central issue? The Times doesn’t like the NCLBA but does like Obamacare.
Please read my paper entitled “Healthcare.”
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.