"
Limited Government: The Supreme Court begins ObamaCare hearings Monday. If it doesn't strike down the law, then there will be no checks left on Washington. America will have been fundamentally changed. "
I strongly disagree with this assertion. America has been fundamentally changing for a long time by reason of the court's overbroad reading of the commerce clause.
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Anybody with a third grade education understands that Congress was given the power to regulate commerce between the States. Otherwise one would have to read that section as giving the U.S. the right to change laws of foreign nations, which of course it could not. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, there were often tarriffs on goods transported from one state to another. States would impose laws protecting certain markets. In other words each state acted like a country.
However thhe courts have expanded this power far beyond the limted intent of the founders and the clear language of the constitution, to such an extent that during the depression it ruled that a man could not grow corn for his own use, without permission from the federal government. Talk about Orwellian.
Now rational people would read the language of the commerce clause and say that is ridiculous, but remember most of us weren't educated at Harvard and somhow endowed with special powers to make words mean something other than what they say.
There have been a few cases that have limited the commerce clause
In 1995, the Rehnquist Court again restricted the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The defendant in this case was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”
The federal government’s power was further restricted in the landmark case of Morrison v. United States, which overturned the Violence Against Women Act for its reliance on the Commerce Clause in making domestic violence against women a federal crime. 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Taken together, Lopez and Morrison have made clear that while the Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.
law.cornell.edu
These are the only Supreme Court cases that I am aware of, that in any way restrict the Federal Power to regulate under the commerce clause.
Given the Court's proclivity to interpret the commerc beyond recognition I do not think an approval of Obama Care will mean that: "America will have been fundamentally changed." as contended by the author of the article. I think it will just be the last of the nails that the court has nailed into the coffin of this great country.
lj |
