US Elections

Tom Coburn loves limited government except when he doesn't

By Luke Freedman in Sydney, Australia

19 July 2012

---

Reason has an interesting interview with Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. A couple of points stood out.

 When asked about his willingness to support some revenue increases Coburn alludes to the distinction that Jonathan Bradley drew between ideological extremism and tactical extremism. A government full of Tom Coburns, the Senator explains, could address the debt problem simply through spending cuts. However, given political realities any solution that doesn’t include new government revenue is untenable.It’s a refreshing statement and one we’re going to need to hear more often if Congress is going to start functioning again.

The real highlight though is the discussion of social conservatism. Coburn has already provided a laundry list of federal programs he thinks are unconstitutional: Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, certain department of education programs etc. But then, at 19:30, the interviewer brings up an instance where Coburn is fully onboard the big government bandwagon.

You were one of the original authors of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and you cited the Commerce Clause as a justification of that, how does that apply?

Coburn is now put in the unenviable position of explaining how government regulation of the $2.6 trillion healthcare industry is unconstitutional yet Congress has authority over a minute subsection of that industry.

In an argument that would make even the most ardent living constitutionalist blush, Coburn references back to the protection of “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” in The Declaration of Independence.

In other words, he favours a very narrow reading of the Commerce Clause unless it’s protecting some abstract right that he happens to favour. This isn’t a principle defence of limited government; it’s having your cake and eating it too.

It's worth noting that a vaguely similar defence of federal power has support amongst some constitutional scholars. Akhil Amar and Jack Balkin have both argued that the 14^th Amendment gave Congress “sweeping powers” to pass laws that, according to their discretion, protected basic human rights.  If this is the type of claim Coburn wants to make there’s plenty of historical evidence to draw on. Of course, doing so would concede that the same argument also justifies a universal healthcare system

Tags: Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, Partial Birth Abortion, Reason, Senate, The Us Constitution, Tom Coburn

Print This Post