[ForGod'sSake]

Holy cow! I completely missed your reply from last night!!! Which distresses me to no end since I was keenly interested in your response. It ain't easy gettin old. ;^)

The short answer is yes. The transit of widgets from state to state can be regulated. Ditto the other hypos.

However, does the question still remain, that if in fact I'm engaging in interstate commerce, can I be regulated? Like maybe I'm restricted to purchasing no more than say, one widget per month? Might I be required to register my newly acquired widgets so as to facilitate compliance? Is this the basis for firearms registration???

Two things re the balance of your reply, particularly the perception(?) the interstate commerce clause is broad; I would contend overly broad:

1) It's patently obvious(to me), given the environment in which the Framers were operating, they NEVER intended such broad authority for the general government. Particularly in light of their almost unanimous concept the STATES would retain most of the policing powers. That questionable precedent, at least as far back as Wickard/Filburn, which BTW was made under extreme duress from FDR intimidation and manipulation, began laying the framework for expanded powers never intended by the Framers.

2) That the high court justices, presumably some of the best legal minds in the country can't seem to get a handle on this gives me a good deal of heartburn. That if they should err, high court justices with a modicum of integrity, should err on the side of the least intrusive interpretation. THAT to me WAS the intent of the Framers. In short, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to assure the States make nice with each other and not engage in what might be considered, trade wars.

No more, no less. Thoughts?

[Brices Crossroads]

“if in fact I’m engaging in interstate commerce, can I be regulated?”

Very good point. The Constitution permits Congress to regulate commerce between the several states. I think your interpretation is more faithful to the framers’ intent than is the current one. The current state of the law, which we must unfortunately confront, is that if you engage in an activity that substantially affect interstate commerce, you are within the reach of Congress’ regulatory power.

BUT, if you are not engaging in any activity whatsoever, then how can Congress justify a regulation of your behavior based upon the fiction that your inertia amounts to commerce? It cannot, unless it defines commerce and regulation in new and unprecedented ways.

If the statist concedes my point and admits that an individual who is inert (i.e.-declining to engage in commerce) is beyond the reach of the commerce power of Congress, what is their fallback approach? (They always have one) Would it be to argue that as soon as the inert individual seeks medical care, he has engaged in activity that substantially affects interstate commerce and is thus subject to the mandate at that point? But the mandate does not contain any such contingency trigger. The statute says what it says and Congress’ authority is cabined by its own statute (Remember Ginsburg in Jones).

Even if the Court were willing to read such a contingency into the statute, isn’t consulting with a Doctor the essence of a local as opposed to an interstate decision. And doesn’t the physician patient relationship (which is the subject of ancient privileges) the very essence of .....privacy! Are not the penumbra of the Ninth Amendment triggered by the state’s interference in such an intimate relationship? Are not Griswold, Roe and their progeny now the dagger aimed at the heart of Obamacare?

And I believe that the right to contract (another ancient right that the commerce clause does not permit Congress to abrogate)with an insurance company is part of the physician patient relationship and entitled not only to the protection based upon the limitations of Congress’ power in the Commerce Clause but based upon the Right to Privacy as well.