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.
Good article, will be a good read this evening. No doubt that all liberals embrace the notion that the federal government can regulate “any gainful activity”. With the emergence of a carbon credit trade, that now includes breathing.
Jim DeMint is suppose to be on the Fox News Sunday morning Talk Show with Wallace....maybe he will get asked...about the Commerce Clause
Do I think the courts will overturn things on something so trivial, no. But we need to put together a consistent message for the people, being very clearly defined on the points of contention.
FReepers are an exception in most cases to the norm. Most Americans are economically illiterate. You say Commerce Clause and most will shrink away from you. Ask them to define a Good or Service. They can't.
Insurance and medical care are very clearly services as such are not able to be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
vs.
Insurance and medical care are very clearly goods not able to be regulated under the Commerce Clause. Why not? All large scale goods are eligible to be regulated under the Commerce Clause?
It is not politically correct to call insurance and medical care a good. It is politically dishonest. This I feel is the core of the matter. They have redefined a service into a good.
Unh-uh. We have to stop that bus before it even leaves the station.
I take your point and agree that this is a viable approach, especially given the efforts of Judge Thomas to apply limits to the Commerce Clause decisions.
However, the left defines the Commerce Clause as applying to “any gainful activity”, and they will take that position in any challenges to this bill should it become law.
Conclusion:
Yes. The Court found that the Child Labor Tax Law was in violation of the Constitution as it intruded on the jurisdiction of states to adopt and enforce child labor codes. Chief Justice Taft argued that the tax law in question did much more than simply impose an "incidental restraint" but exerted a "prohibitory and regulatory effect" in a realm over which Congress had no jurisdiction. Taft feared that upholding this law would destroy state sovereignty and devastate "all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress" by allowing it to disguise future regulatory legislation in the cloak of taxes.
It’s a Photoshopped X-ray of a large screw inserted into someone’s rectum.
“We’re screwed.”
If Obama knocks on the doors of 100 of your neighbors and demands that they do XYZ, and all 100 of them compliantly do XYZ, then it doesn’t really matter what the constitution says.
Even if you have your weapon and your ammo, you’ve lost your freedom.
Now if, say, ten of your neighbors refuse to comply, and take up arms and ammo, then things get a bit interesting.
What is the magic number? Is it ten? Is it 50? Is it 5? Is it 20?
Has the Supreme Court acquired an Army that would be sufficient to really enforce that?
The government has only gotten away with what they have is that we have tolerated a long train of abuses. We are no longer willing to continue to suffer them.
I thought maybe it was a Kevin Jennings self-portrait and part of the arts curriculum in public schools.
Then they need to point to a CFR definition. Just because they say it is so...doesn’t make it so.
AFAIK, Clarence Thomas is the only Commerce Clause originalist on the Court:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Justice Thomas, dissenting in Raich
___________________________________
Scalia sided with fedgov:
"...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich
As 60 Democrat Senators were overheard asking: "What is this 'Constitution' thing and what is it used for? Never heard of it!"
as an attorney i can sympathize with your view. the issues surrounding the commerce clause are a classic touch-off point for discussing deeper issues in this country. Madison and Hamilton knew that, at the end of the day, virtue would stand as the ultimate tie-breaker and no words, paper or eloquent speeches would ever succeed it.
but fundamental law (a constitution) can act on the better hand to nurture virtue and purge all else. no system is perfect, and Madison’s dream of an ideal republic was handicapped by a Constitution insufficient to prejudicially eradicate everything not virtuous. i think we can see today that Hamilton’s version was the better choice, but we’re talking about what are, on paper, tiny differences that amount to a lot after 250 years of abuse by politicians. this will need fixing after the dust settles.
politicians and lawyers are by their nature selfish and nothing will suffice to control them than a culture of virtue that opposes them. they must be opposed with all vigilance and herded like the cattle they are. they are creatures of self. in that dusty and dirty crowd we once in a while find virtue and only in a state of crisis can the two meet and make things happen.
the united states is passing the rubicon and a crisis of impotence is emerging: the federal government is quickly reaching a point where it can no longer issue or enforce real public policy. all it can do now is transfer money from you, to the treasury and then back out to special interests. that is its raison d etat today. all else is fraud and corruption.
if virtue prevailed in washington as it did long, long ago, we would have no such debate about the commerce clause. everyone would understand exactly what it meant without having to call yale and poll the law professors. it means what it means. the second amendment means what it means.
before discarding all lawyers as a part of that cabal, i would only ask that people consider the possibility that virtue can be found there, that they are quietly observing the situation, and that you will know them by their obvious, public sacrifice where upon victory they hand the sword of power back to those that commissioned them, turn and quietly walk away entrusting their futures and the future of millions to rule of law. we will see this again soon, so help me God.
you and i may disagree greatly on matters of public policy. we’re supposed to. but in this war any who stand for virtue stand with us and again, you will know us by our faithful execution of rule of law. Law always should say what it says and should not be a tea-leaved, 10,000 dollar service just to understand one sentence. the commerce clause was obviously purely directed toward limited matters of interstate commerce. but all of his who care about virtue know that.
in these dangerous times those of our oldest traditions in politics are the last ones to hold on to any appreciation of virtue in rule of law. hopefully, those last holders of the crown will, upon the right confluence of events, act and act with purpose.
watch Sarah Palin, i’d suggest. she is going to make real history that puts her in that rare camp of those making history above and beyond the designs of public relations.
apparently the time in which everyone else will also know this is coming on, and its coming on strongly.
It’s much greater than that. They’re claiming unlimited federal power under the commerce clause to regulate and tax the American people as if WE were commercial products or goods and to penalize or imprison us if we choose to defend Liberty by refusing to pay up. They’re treating us as if we were cattle to be tagged and delivered to the slaughter house. Their assumptions and intents are preposterous and dangerous!
If this bill becomes law then the treacherous usurpers must be impeached by the people and forcibly run out of town on a rail and their treasonous nonsense must be physically ripped from the congressional register and off the books, or our freedom is forever doomed!
This is outright tyranny and treason by the majority of the senate and must not be allowed to stand!
It’s getting awful close to the point where testing the second amendment as the final defense of the constitution and the continuation of the Republic and our God-given Liberty will be required.
All patriots must prepare to choose which side you will defend. Our God-given Liberty or treasonous tyranny!
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!
I know where I stand.
I share it. And I desperately want us to be right.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court precedents regarding the Commerce Clause have set terrible precedents.
In one case, a farmer who grew extra grain which was used on his farm and not transported to any other location was found guilty of a violation of certain New Deal agriculture laws. In another, home made pot which had not been involved in interstate traffic (and was not even sold, I think), was found to be considered “interstate commerce” (Thomas dissented and held that such an interpretation would even regulate church bake sales!)
How about United States v. Darby Lumber Co?:
Court said the 10th Amendment “is but a truism” and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.
Very well stated!
All it takes is five votes to make it so, and four of those votes have made it quite clear that they could care less what the Constitution has to say.
Bless you.
Only a state, or better yet, a group of states, can force the federal government to return to the true meaning and intent of the commerce clause.
The 10th has long been abused and it will take a few governors with true grit to set things right.
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.