advertisement

Health care bill: How Missouri representatives voted

Monday, March 22, 2010 | 10:58 a.m. CDT

WASHINGTON — With a 219-212 vote and no Republican support, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill Sunday night.

Columbia's representative, Republican Blaine Luetkemeyer, voted against the bill.

Democrats voting yes: Emanuel Cleaver, William Lacy Clay, Russ Carnahan

Democrat voting no: Ike Skelton

Republicans voting yes: None

Republicans voting no: Luetkemeyer, Todd Akin, Roy Blunt, Jo Ann Emerson, Sam Graves

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

dennis Goode March 22, 2010 | 1:21 p.m.

I will never foget the names of these three Missourians, (and I use that term lightly), that voted yes (for whatever reason). They have openly defied the constitution and permanently lost my trust. I will do everything I can to see that they are never re-elected.

(Report Comment)
molly r March 22, 2010 | 5:46 p.m.

I will be making it a point to donate to those who voted YES on this bill, to reward them for seeing through the lies propagated by right wing talking heads and mindlessly repeated by tea baggers. I was so disappointed in Ike Skelton and my mistaken support of his previous campaigns. By November, as thousands of Missourians finally gain access to affordable health care, the tea baggers and their fearful nonleaders will be hoping we've all forgotten how loudly they screamed their hatred and anger at those legislators who, despite being black, or gay, are still Americans.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 22, 2010 | 10:47 p.m.

Two points for you Molly. First, get off the sexual innuendo with the teabagger term. It makes you look like a cast member on Beavis and Butthead. Secondly, the healthcare "reform" doesn't kick in until around 2014, so your November dream is just that.

(Report Comment)
patti leake March 23, 2010 | 9:03 a.m.

those claiming the passage of the law violates the constitution are showing their ignorance concerning the constitution. Specifically in concern to the 10th ammendment: Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:“ The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 23, 2010 | 10:06 a.m.

Patti, you might want to read the preceding bits of Article 1, Section 8 and let us know which of the powers granted to the federal government by the states allows for the feds to meddle in health care.

(Report Comment)
patti leake March 23, 2010 | 3:19 p.m.

Professor Timothy Jost of Washington & Lee University School of Law explained this morning on Washington Journal: under the supremacy clause, a sate cannot tell the federal government what to do…the Commerce Clause says Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states. And since the 1930’s, that power has been interpreted very broadly….basically, the law now is that if there is any kind of economic activity involved, Congress has the power to regulate it. And of course Congress does. We have lots of federal laws, regulating all sorts of economic activity. The decision of when to buy insurance — do I buy it now when I’m healthy or do I buy it once I’m in not ambulance on the way to the hospital — is an economic decision and Congress clearly has the power to regulate it. And once Congress has the power to do something under the supremacy clause, its laws are supreme to the laws of the states and the tenth amendment only provides that states retain powers that are not granted to Congress

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock March 23, 2010 | 3:53 p.m.

Seems to me that we need to elect some congressmen and women who will pass something that will empower states more. The idea that congress or the government will run anything more efficient is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. I know one thing there will probably be a turnover in congress like there has never been before. I hope they vote most of the incumbents out.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 23, 2010 | 6:12 p.m.

I'm not a lawyer (thankfully, as I often point out), but the Supremacy Clause doesn't seem to be relevant if the courts find that the federal government has no power granted to it to regulate healthcare. As for the Commerce Clause, it has been bastardized to regulate intrastate commerce or even non-commerce (below text stolen from the Wikipedia discussion of the Commerce Clause and its application into a medical marijuana law in California regarding pot that did not cross a state line):

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has in the last two decades played a part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most widely interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales, “Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.[9]

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements