Obamacare Mandates Justified by ‘Interstate Commerce’? (Obama's Team recycles an old trick)

National Review ^ | 03/28/2012 | Thomas Sowell

[kevao]

Alcoholism, drug addiction and STDs all contribute to rising health care costs. The Bible promotes sobriety, temperance, and abstinence from extra-marital sex. Ergo, Fedzilla should mandate that every citizen purchase a Bible.

[Verginius Rufus]

By 1942 most of the justices on the Supreme Court were FDR’s nominees.

[willyd]

insurance is only sold within each state, so the regulation of interstate commerce would not apply.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I would use this logic against the libs. Keep throwing out all these things and when they claim how stupid they are, tell them it is their ideas.

Some will actually say, hmmm... But most will put their hands over their ears and go nananananana......

Or, You’re a racist.

[Pearls Before Swine]

There was consternation in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. That conclusion might seem like only common sense to most people, but it was a close 5–4 decision, and it sparked outrage when the phrase “interstate commerce” failed to work its magic in justifying an expansion of the federal government’s power.

The 1995 case involved a federal law forbidding anyone to carry a gun near a school. The states all had the right to pass such laws, and most did, but the issue was whether the federal government could pass such a law under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

The underlying argument was similar to that in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn: School violence can affect education, which can affect productivity, which can affect interstate commerce.

Gee, this could be an argument against the legalization of medical marijuana, or the home cultivation of such in any stae. Some of the MJ could find it's way to truck drivers, and affect the reliability of their driving, which would in turn affect interstate commerce. Okaaaaayyy.

/S, of course

[cableguymn]

I gotta ask..

since I can’t buy health insurance from another state.. how can they claim they can regulate health insurance under “interstate commerce”?

[Jacquerie]

It is reference to Article II of Confederation:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

The anti-federalists demanded insertion of this Article as an amendment to the Constitution.

[Durus]

I much prefer the 10th amendment to Article II. Art. II enshrined the supremecy of the state over the people. The 10th Amendment holds both the Federal and State governments to their constitutionally enumerated powers and reserved all other powers to the people.

[buridan]

Durus wrote: ‘Why does it need to say “explicitly”?’

I agree that it doesn’t really need to to be effective. However, if it did, it would limit federal power to an even greater extent.

[Durus]

The 10th Amendment limted the power of government to only those constitutionally enumerated. It reserves all other power to the states or to the people. That our Government constantly ignores this can’t be fixed by adding any single word. We, the people, either hold them to the plain meaning of the constitution, or they will ignore it no matter what the words say.