FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots are reminded that several generations of pre-FDR era, state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had used healthcare as an example in some case opinions to clarify the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, the misguided Roberts Court seemingly ignoring these clarifications imo.
-
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
-
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
-
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
-
"Obviously, direct control of medical practice [emphases added] in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.” —Linder v. United States, 1925.
-
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, regarding the question of the constitutionality of the so-called Obamacare insurance mandate, Supreme Court clarification of the fed's constitutionally limited powers had also included the case decision that insurance is a contract, not commerce, insurance policies therefore out of the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, regardless if buyer and seller are domiciled in different states.
-
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
-
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia (Paul), 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
Note that Paul v. Virginia was eventually overturned by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n).
H O W E V E R…
A few years before FDR's renegade Court overturned Paul, state sovereignty-ignoring activist majority justices had effectively scandalously repealed the 10th Amendment in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) imo.
More specifically, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard in Congress’s favor imo.
-
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
-
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Getting back to Paul v. Virginia, the corrupt Court's politically correct repeal of 10A in Wickard gave it the "license" to overturn Paul in South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n imo.
Finally, Supreme Court clarifications that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate policy, regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare is further evidenced by the following.
Speaker Pelosi seemingly took advantage of the scandalous, politically correct repeal of 10A by FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices. This is evidenced by her wrongful ignoring of a repeatedly introduced resolution to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification before irresponsibly ramming Obamacare through the House imo.
Not only did Pelosi scandalously ignore the resolution for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution, but she also wrongly ignored the will of the Article V state supermajority by doing so.
Remember in November!
MAGA, now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.