Any Fool Can Understand the Commerce Clause by Alan Caruba

Another fantastic article by Alan Caruba at Warning Signs. He spells out how the Constitution protects us from the illegality of Obamacare in such short order that one would have to question how anyone could determine otherwise. Yet somehow, a couple of judges have felt it is their duty to legislate from the bench regarding the implementation of Obamacare rather than to actually apply the protections written in the Constitution. This of course, is only happening because of the stubbornly corrupt will of the Progressives combined with the apathy of the people.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

By Alan Caruba

I am not a lawyer. I never wanted to be a lawyer. I have some friends who are lawyers and I forgive them and occasionally have to employ them. America, at the federal, state, and local level generates so many laws that the system requires a legion of lawyers to deal with them. The result is a general lack of respect for all laws short of the Ten Commandments.

The U.S. Constitution, in effect since June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it, is a remarkable document, not the least for being the oldest functioning constitution of any nation at this point in time. What I like best about it is that anyone can read and understand it.

Until the progressive era in the U.S. that began in the 1900s and went bonkers in the 1930s, the Constitution underwent a number of judicial interpretations that largely affirmed the intentions of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. This was made easier by the existence of the Federalist Papers, letters and writings by the Framers, who clarified its various elements.

The Constitution was not foisted on Americans. It was, after the collapse of the Articles of Confederation, widely discussed and debated. With the addition of the Bill of Rights, all the original States signed onto it. There have been only 27 Amendments because, wisely the Framers contrived to make the process as difficult as possible. They also fashioned an instrument of governance intended to slow down the entire legislative process.

Americans understand that passing 2,000-plus page bills that have not been read or attempting to pass such bills hurriedly during the “lame duck” session of Congress, many of whose members have been voted out of office, is an obscenity, an offense to the intent of the Constitution.

Anyone reading Article One, Section 8, understands it enumerates a number of powers allocated solely to the Federal government such as the coining of money, declaring war, and such. It was always understood that the federal government is limited to the exercise of the Constitution’s enumerated powers.

One of those powers is “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…” That is the commerce clause.

The meaning of commerce was limited to “trade and exchange” of goods and transportation for this purpose The purpose was to make “regular” such activity; to provide laws to ensure that business would be conducted properly between the States or with foreign nations to everyone’s mutual benefit.

What the commerce clause does not authorize is the right of the federal government to compel a citizen to involuntarily purchase anything.

The “linchpin” of Obamacare is the requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance or to suffer a financial penalty for failing to do so, but the federal government has restricted the free purchase of health insurance across State lines, thus inhibiting competition that would allow for competition and lower rates. There is a touch of schizophrenia in this.

As Judge Henry Hudson recently ruled in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius, on December 13, “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (the individual mandate) exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.”

“The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter, nor the spirit of the Constitution.”

That should be the end of the issue and the end of Obamacare, but as the late Justice Rehnquist noted in one decision, “it is illuminating for purposes of reflections, if not for argument, to note that one of the greatest fictions of our federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or to the people.”

The growth of the powers Congress has arrogated to itself is the singular greatest threat to freedom and liberty in America. This is why so many individual States have joined in the several cases brought against Obamacare.

Failing a common sense ruling on this case by the Supreme Court, the States have but one option left and that is nullification. They can, individually and together, pass laws to restrict the implementation of Obamacare.

Meanwhile, the incoming 2011 Congress can and should do everything in its power to defund and otherwise thwart this assault on liberty.

In 2012, Americans can rid themselves of the current usurper of the office of the presidency, a man whose first executive order, #13489, issued on January 21, 2009, was directed at hiding all essential documentation of his legitimacy.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Sadly today, too often people(those who call themselves Democrats) use emotion as their determining mechanism rather than using reasoned understanding to interpret law. If only these people would put aside emotion-based solutions and worked with logic, the healthcare divide would have been a closed matter. If given the elevation of competitive practice through interstate commerce, health insurance would have dropped in price while the products offered would have increased. If the leftists had the ability to consider tort reform(which should have been a given with the lawsuit happy liberals who sue under the very auspices of harassment, discrimination, or unfair practice conceived by them) there would be a decrease in malpractice insurance costs to doctors thereby allowing the costs associated with medical care and the number of superfluous treatments thrown at patients would have gone down. If liberals concerned themselves with the elderly and their well-being, like they do for saving a healthy and normally functioning planet, then Medicare and Medicaid would not be an issue… Cutting reimbursements to doctors is just another Robin Hood measure cloaked in sheep’s skin much like the Big Bad Wolf. 

Liberals may want to limit the money paid to doctors in their ruse of wealth-redistribution but they are single-handedly causing greater costs associated with more procedural tests, forcing doctors to take on more patients in order to recoup financial loss while the level of attention to the patient is going down. Less one-on-one face time with patients means less personalized care and making patients feel like they are just a number, which very well may be the ultimate goal of the socialist Progressive agenda of the future. Insurance companies are going to be forced to cut cost corners and that will be seen in the type of research and development in medicines, equipment, and life-sustaining procedures, let alone the decreased amount of life-saving procedures in the future with the potential implementation of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel(I will be writing an article about this in the future, research it for yourself and you will cringe).

If Dr. Emanuel’s name seems familiar it is because he is Rahm Emanuel’s brother. Yes, that Rahm Emanuel… the one that was White House Chief Of Staff before deciding that he was “qualified” to be mayor of Chicago. Brother Dearest Rahm, was able to get Dr. Emanuel two key positions on the S.S. Obamacare Titanic – “health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.” …Cozy bunch of cronies they have up there in D.C.– those darned Democrats!

This entry was posted in Current Issues, Ethics, Healthcare, Obamacare, President Obama, U.S. Constitution, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Any Fool Can Understand the Commerce Clause by Alan Caruba

  1. LD Jackson says:

    Thanks for sharing this post with us, Eric. I was listening to NPR on the way to work this morning and they had two “legal experts” discussing the commerce clause. I found it amazing that they could have such differing opinions. The basic reasoning of the expert who thought the commerce clause could be used to force the mandate on Americans was simple. He said Congress had the authority to do that because anyone who doesn’t purchase insurance is putting a hardship on other Americans when they have to go to the hospital and someone else has to pay for it. It boggles me mind that they can take something so simply worded and make it so complicated. Sort of reminds me of how they have made the 2nd Amendment such a convoluted issue. But, I digress.

  2. Thanks LD. It has become apparent that even the most basic of statements can be manipulated for whatever agenda one may want to superimpose upon it.

    Take for example the 2nd Amendment as you point out… Our Constitution is written in such simplified yet concise terms that there should be little interpretive biases available. Not only did the Framers take great care and caution in writing the Amendments, they went so far as to offer lengthy discussion of the basis for them with the Federalist papers. If there is a reason for discussion on how to interpret the “spirit” of a particular Amendment, one need only read the Federalist paper that comprised the resolution of that Amendment and they would find the argument and counter-argument laid out in in-depth essay form. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton opted to use the term “Federalist Papers” despite the connotation associated with it because they wanted to isolate any dissenting opinion to having a title of “Anti-.” They used great foresight with that because they knew that there will always be someone who will come along and challenge the ideas of the government and our Constitution and to do so would automatically have a “negative” attached to their points.

    I digress though… Back to interpretation of the 2nd Amendment… SCOTUS Judge Breyer just recently went on a tangential explanation of his opinion of the 2nd. He argues that the Founders wanted gun control by exclusively pointing to the first part of the Amendment and ignoring the latter half. Man, if you caught the video of him talking about it, you’d immediately recognize that he’ll be legislating from the bench on any future 2nd Amendment issues. I hope you saw the tape that I’m referring to, but if not… SilenceDogood2010 is another blog that I follow and he did an excellent piece on it recently… Take a look at it.

    Thank you for visiting tonight. I subscribed to your blog… I have seen your comments all around but wasn’t aware that you had a blog. And a very nice one at that! It’ll be on my list tomorrow.


    • LD Jackson says:

      I noticed that you had subscribed to Political Realities, Eric. Thanks for doing that. I have added you to my Google Reader and will be keeping with your blog like that. I am also going to add you to my blog roll.

      I will be taking a look at the other video you mentioned.

  3. Pingback: Sunday Hunt For Links – Cooper’s Hawk Edition | Political Realities

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s