Discussion on the intent of the Commerce Clause

Dec 25, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

FEDERAL DRUG LAWS DEPEND ON EXPANDED COMMERCE POWER.
If you are in favor of federal drug laws, then you are part of the LEFT-RIGHT conspiracy to destroy the Constitution. The original commerce clause, intended only to prevent states from levying taxes on each other's products, does not and did not by all precedents before 1942 allow the federal government to regulate drugs or alcohol. The Prohibition Amendment was the result of a succession of federal attempts at intra-state regulation being struck down by pre-WWI originalist supreme courts. If you want drug laws without an amendment because that's just too hard, then you are the problem and your own worst enemy.

[Candor7]

Two can play at this game.

You know as well as I know that
“the Constitution says whatever We the people say it says”.

And we say that the Commerce Clause does not give the Federal Givernment the power to order citizens to make third party private payments.

[rockinqsranch]

Excellent post. Thank you.

I read your few postings “In Forum” as well. Thanks for your participation.

[mojitojoe]

You can discuss it all you like but the fact remains that the Feds can do whatever they wish to whomever they wish and you can’t say jack sh** about it.
_________________
BS! Wanna bet? I will pay a single red cent toward health care. You can take that to the bank!

[mojitojoe]

2nd Christmas in a row our children asked for guns and ammo. I was glad to oblige, that’s some fun shopping. If they ever try to take away our guns, I know how I will die.

[TigersEye]

That is very disappointing to see a statement made by Scalia that makes no sense whatsoever. That’s nothing but gobbledygook. Spin on top of spin.

[KTM rider]

evidently, the view that the commerce clause and article 1 section 8 justify imposition of any and all entitlements and taxes is widely held by constitutional scholars

I posed this question about the constitutionality of Obamacare to the A.C.L.J. last June. The ACLJ mostly deals in matters of freedom of religion, and their response was identicle to the response I recieved from senator Feinstein.

It would be good if the team of lawyers that represented Bush Vs Gore were to visit this matter.

I will be surprised if the challenge is ever even presented to SCOTUS, much less accepted. Maybe our best hope lies with the Heritage Foundation

[john in springfield]

I always thought that the Commerce Clause was meant to allow the government to, um, regulate commerce between the states.

[TChris]

I always thought that the Commerce Clause was meant to allow the government to, um, regulate commerce between the states.

Simple-minded fool! ;-)

You must go to law school and learn that NOTHING means what it says in plain language, least of all the Constitution. It takes a LAWYER to decipher what the framers MEANT to write, dontcha know.

[john in springfield]

Yeah. See my tagline.

[Always Independent]

California definitely needs to have some representation in the senate from southern CA. Her hubby Blum must be investing heavily in the healthcare industry now.

[publiusF27]

Scalia said his opinion was not different from Stevens' in the Raich case, just perhaps more "nuanced." Uh huh.

Here's how I see it. Stevens' opinion is one huge long ramble that basically says Wickard=Raich over and over in every possible legal way. In doing so, Stevens filled the opinion with the name Wickard, anathema to conservatives. Scalia wanted a Raich opinion that was not completely filled with Wickard, so he wrote one, and stuck his lone reference to Wickard down in a footnote.

His opinion was about the necessary and proper clause, a part of the Constitution, and not about private actors affecting commerce within their own state (or property). But how can regulation be "necessary and proper" without the aggregate substantial effects of those individuals? In other words, without Wickard? Nuanced my @$$. Scalia's opinion is derived from Wickard and falls apart without it, just like Stevens'. It just only says Wickard once. Very skillful writing.

Where is robertpaulsen when you need him to explain why all this is the only possible conservative thought?

[publiusF27]

The problem is worse than you described, if the bill is written as I last saw it. It amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to basically dictate what you will do with income that is otherwise untaxed.

They are not just using the commerce power, which as Justice Thomas pointed out in the Raich medical marijuana case means the feds can regulate "virtually anything." They are also relying on the power to tax for the legislation. That one goes back to things like the Harrison Narcotics Act, National Firearms Act, and Marihuana Tax Act. The feds can use the power to tax to prohibit all kinds of private actions, including growing a plant in your yard and smoking it, and it was used for exactly that long before the commerce clause was.

There is a mountain of case law saying all this is OK. Where is that robertpaulsen guy anyway? He can explain why it's all good.

[publiusF27]

When the partial birth abortion bill was passed, it relied for authority on the commerce clause. Though he voted for the bill Ron Paul expressed reservations about that basis for authority, as well as another aspect of the argument that basically concedes the opposing view. Your thoughts on that?

[EBH]

I have heard this past week that the democrats are using the Commerce Clause as the ‘flag’ under which they have the ability to mandate health care and insurance.

Medical and Insurance are not tangible goods as defined for commerce. They have been long established as services. We must stop calling them goods as that is a dishonest political maneuver.

Services that fail to meet expectations fall into two categories. Either poor service or fraud. Insurance companies can be difficult to deal with and can be held accountable for fraud and poor medical services are again accountable through the patients ability to sue.

Removing them from the definition as a service and redefining them as a good, removes the patients ability to have logical recourse and protections under the law.

---

Think on that last line for a bit. Trouble dealing with your insurance company under 0bamacare? Insurance company responds with ...”Well, that's the government mandate.”

Want to go that extra mile to fight your cancer...Doctor responds, “Sorry we can't do that...that's the government mandate.” You can no longer buy a doctor's services. His services don't exist anymore, if we let them continue to define medical care as a “good.”

[browniexyz]

Well, in my state, I am NOT ALLOWED to purchase insurance across state lines—therefore, my purchase of health insurance sure as heck ain’t a matter of interstate commerce.

[CRBDeuce]

if this bill becomes law without the people rising up to reject it, the Marxist coup d’etat will be completed. The great American experiment in self-government and individual liberty will have failed.

T H E . B O T T O M . L I N E

So well stated, concise and to the point. And as usual, Kerry is carrying the surrender papers to the enemy. Sharia is right around the corner when the blind as bats libtards open the door!

[mellow velo]

Set aside for later reading.

[antisocial]

“We must attach them and keep attaching them.”

Yep, lets attach them to rocks and drop them in the ocean.

[eyeamok]

I can’t believe what I am reading in this thread, how dare you people question our Lawgivers, the very Idea that they should be constrained by an over 200 year old letter to King George is ridiculous. These people give us our Rights and our Laws, without them we would be nothing more than serf’s. They know better than you do whats good for you, and you should never question their ability to make life altering decisions for you and your family. The very idea that you know whats best for you and your family goes against our most cherished founding document, written by Frederick Engles and Karl Marx. And lets not forget our economic modeling document Das Kapitol. Now run along kids, let the Lawgivers do their magic so we can all live in a more just society, where no one other than Political Class has The Freedom to choose their own destiny, After all it is their right as Lawgivers.

We the people being the loyal servant’s of our Public Masters do hereby...........