2nd Amendment Trumps Commerce Clause Fantasy
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/25/2009 1:56:41 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
And apparently 59 other Democrat senators agree with her.
It is my understanding that the intent of the commerce clause is to assign the responsibility of regulating commerce (the transportation and trading of goods with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes) to the central government, taking the law-making responsibility for “inter-state trade and foreign trade” out of the hands of state government. Its purpose is to ensure that trade flows smoothly and unrestricted among the states and that foreign trade CAN be restricted by taxes and tariffs, etc, by the congress where necessary and appropriate to promote the domestic economy.
It was never intended to regulate the agricultural industry itself, or the manufacturing process of products or goods, or services, and definitely NOT to regulate or tax individual FREE citizens.
And the commerce clause was never intended to regulate trade among private citizens, nor does it regulate intra-state commerce, nor does it override states rights to govern themselves. The 10th amendment rules!
We the people continue to enjoy our God-given unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness also including among others the constitutional rights to private property, security in our homes and private affairs, due process, presumption of innocence, right to trial before a jury of our peers, etc, and the rights to self-defense and to defend ourselves and our property and our posterity against tyrannical government!
Somebody please tell me where I'm wrong.
Ahh, great point.
It was that case that provided Congress the authority to regulate the industry. SCOTUS did not set up law. They just said that the industry could be overseen by Congress.
Congress then set up the walls that prevent the selling across states lines with McCarran–Ferguson Act in response to Courts decision.
The writings on the subject I have read talk about using the commerce power to impose tariffs on foreign goods as a means of encouraging domestic manufacturing. Allowing individual States to negotiate their own trade agreements with foreign countries would make that impossible to do. They knew this, and that is why they agreed that it was necessary to cede that power.
Will finding that unconstitutional de-rail the entire program, or will it just mean that Obama and the Senate leadership get to take back their bribe, but Nelson doesn't get to take back his vote?
I ask these questions out of ignorance:
My home owners insurance is provided by a members’ cooperative, located in my home state, Kansas, but operating in most states of the union. So, I can bring suit here in Kansas, but what about other members, residing elsewhere?
My automobile insurance is issued by a company headquartered in Texas, but writing policies for automobiles all over the world. Do I have to bring suit in Texas, or may I seek relief from the Kansas courts?
If Congress were to permit health insurance to be sold across state lines, how would those insurers be any different than those offering life, property, and automobile insurance?
2nd Amendment Trumps Commerce Clause Fantasy
Then by that precedent, it appears that Congress has already regulated itself out of having any further say in the matter.
The first rule of any good Marxist when they seize power is throw away the dictionaries. Then they can play with words a la 1984
To demonstrate that "Scalia's opinion is derived from Wickard and falls apart without it..."? Not even close.
How can it be essential to regulate things that have no substantial effect at all?
Where the regulation is essential to a system of comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce, as Scalia stated. And which you failed to address.
It's supporting interests did. Don't think for a minute that the those who attended the Federal Convention didn't anticipate how it was to be funded. Effectively, the States were ceding tariff power to a prospective national government. Effectively, the commerce clause was the result of a debate that had gone on in the Continental Congress for a good many years.
Federal usurpation would be even greater with the health insurance mandates than drug laws. Not buying insurance cannot be considered commercial activity. What about the OR euthanasia laws that have resisted federal intervention. I’m with you, I’d much rather side with state laws unless federal power is specifically enumerated. I’m no fan of drug legalization, same sex marriage or euthanasia but I’d much rather have the states decide on these issues. If I don’t like a state law, I can always move to another state or work in my state to get it changed, but a bad federal law would be a disaster.
If the health insurance mandates pass, we need our Republican presidential candidates to state whether the law is constitutional and directly state whether they would direct Treasury/IRS to enforce these laws if elected!
So what’s the point? If that’s what the States knew it meant when they ratified the Constition, then that’s what they agreed to. If we are going to pursue a doctrine of original intent then we should honor that agreement.
The claim of authority to regulate either one originates in the New Deal Commerce Clause. Read Wickard v Filburn. If not buying wheat can be considered "commercial activity", then so can not buying insurance.
I was adding a historical motive for the commerce clause that wasn't in Jim's discussion, effectively reinforcing the exposition. It certainly wasn't a point of disagreement.
I wish. They can reverse Anti-trust exemption as well as the state authority of McCarran–Ferguson Act.
Someone will have to challenge that issue like the AG of South Carolina. If they win then Nebraska gets nothing or they take back the bribe and we are still stuck with his vote.
Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, there was probably some intent to reserve revenues from foreign tariffs to the federal government at the time. If nothing else, they understood that imposing a tariff meant enforcing it. At the time, that meant having a sufficient naval presence to prevent smuggling, and that takes money.
I can't imagine they didn't already have that figured out when they made the deal.
With the mandates not in force until 2014, any damages could not be claimed until that time.I don’t know how quickly a court challenge could be mounted against the health care laws. My thought is that state legislatures could pass laws allowing intra-state insurance companies to sell bare bones catastrophic health insurance that do not meet specifications as federal “qualified” insurance plans.
Another approach could be the purchase of an insurance plan from a non-US international insurance company. This company could enter into a contract with a US citizen in another country and provide US or international coverage. Right now, some US companies provide insurance coverage to US citizens receiving treatment abroad (Costa Rica).
I see this going down with the election of a Republican president who refuses to enforce the mandates (active in 2014) and orders Treasury/IRS to stand down. Then SCOTUS will do something.
While the company may be all over the world. The policy you purchased is filed and approved with the Kansas Insurance Department (K.I.D) (http://www.ksinsurance.org/). If you need any relief it would be in Kansas.
Those that are offering life, property and auto all must file the policies with the Kansas Insurance Department. They must meet state guidelines before you can be offered the policy. They may be a national company (State Farm) but the policy you buy has been approved by someone within K.I.D on behalf of Sandy Praeger.
I hear many argue for allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, but if the federal government were to allow policies to be sold across state lines but consider the following questions:
Do I want to pay premiums to offset losses incurred by an insurance company in FL or LA?
Where would I go for recourse? The federal government?
Would I call Harry Reed about an insurance company in Nevada?
Would the federal government establish and insurance czar to help sort out these issues.
That scares me.
Mabe they assumed no one would challenge? Maybe they assumed if someone does, then the fed is off the hook?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.