Posted on 03/22/2010 3:42:17 PM PDT by Heartlander2
FEDERAL HEALTH CARE PLAN REMARKS March 22, 2010
It is not part of my job as the Attorney General of Colorado to weigh in on whether the Patient Protection and Affordability Health Care Act passed by Congress yesterday is good public policy. It is however, part of my job to defend the rights of the State of Colorado and its citizens from the exercise of federal power in violation of the United States Constitution.
The U. S. Constitution gives the federal government only enumerated powers. All other powers are expressly left to the states and their people. One such enumerated power in the Constitution is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Under that enumerated power, anyone who voluntarily engages in commercial activity that affects interstate commerce is subject to regulation by Congress. So, for example, Congress may regulate people who choose to buy or sell insurance to the extent that impacts interstate commerce.
But in the health care legislation passed yesterday, Congress is attempting, for the first time in our history, to use the interstate commerce power to regulate citizens who choose not to engage in a commercial activity, by forcing them to buy insurance. Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under the threat of economic sanction, to purchase a particular product or service as a condition of living in this country. After careful analysis of the individual health care mandate and the arguments of various legal scholars, I have come to the conclusion that this expansion of federal power is unconstitutional and have made a decision to join several other state attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging the individual health care mandate.
Even the Congressional Budget Office understood the unprecedented implications of this legislation when it stated: "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The federal government has never before required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
As desirable as it may be for all Americans to purchase health care insurance, the commerce clause, or any other provision of the Constitution, does not give Congress the authority to compel a citizen, who would otherwise choose to be inactive in the marketplace, to purchase a product or service that Congress deems beneficial. Such an expansion of the current understanding of the commerce clause would leave no private sphere of individual commercial decision making beyond the reach of the federal government. Congress could make any citizen buy any product or service it wanted, if buying it would be commercial activity subject to the interstate commerce clause. Such an expansion of federal power would render the 10th Amendment meaningless.
I understand that many citizens of Colorado will allege that this lawsuit is politically motivated. It is not. I am not reacting to any group or constituency. All I can do is assure all Coloradans that my decision is based on my belief that the individual health care mandate is an unprecedented expansion of the power of the federal government that could undermine the rights of the states and their citizens for generations to come.
It appears quite a number of States will take this unconstitutional healthcare bill to court.
Mr. Suthers, you sir are an American hero.
Souther is one of the few ‘pubs in state gov’t.
Suthers, that is.
“Such an expansion of the current understanding of the commerce clause would leave no private sphere of individual commercial decision making beyond the reach of the federal government. Congress could make any citizen buy any product or service it wanted, if buying it would be commercial activity subject to the interstate commerce clause. Such an expansion of federal power would render the 10th Amendment meaningless.”
This core argument seems so obvious and compelling to me (no constitutional scholar,to be sure) that if the SCOTUS sees it otherwise, I will know that we no longer live in a constitutional republic. It would almost shock me if the decision were not unanimous.
Awesome. Can they rip other parts out of this stinking BS law to gut it?
Godspeed in your fight against tyranny.
“It would almost shock me if the decision were not unanimous.”
The drooling butthole Stevens has never seen a piece of communist legislation he didn’t love. Several years ago the Stalinist jackass blurted that “we must revisit the idea of the 2nd amendment as an individual right.” (Paraphrase) Stevens should be dressed in a clown suit and shipped one-way to North Korea. When conservatives take back the house, the first order of business should be to impeach the commie for treason.
It is unconstitutional. You cannot mandate an individual purchase any item-period. If they allow this to be called law, the citizens of the United States have zero rights. They’ll force you to buy their treasury notes and other “goods” they deem are for the general welfare. There’s simply no way this can stand. They also cannot tax an individual solely as a means of controlling conduct that it could not otherwise reach through the commerce clause or any other constitutional provision. That’s a Supreme Court ruling.
I get so sick of the “well they make you buy car insurance.” First of all that’s not true-IF you want to drive a vehicle you have to have liability insurance to protect other drivers. And this is done at the state level, where powers not delegated to the Federal government are granted.
Thanks.
Congress is attempting, for the first time in our history, to use the interstate commerce power to regulate citizens who choose not to engage in a commercial activity, by forcing them to buy insurance.
Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under the threat of economic sanction, to purchase a particular product or service as a condition of living in this country
WHEW!!
I was getting worried that Colorado wouldn’t make it on the list.
YAY!!!
Congress claims a legitimate mandate from the Commerce Clause, which in this case has the effect of penalizing American citizens for being "non-commercial" in their behavior. That is, if they refuse to engage in the mandated commercial activity — which isn't even interstate commerce. The current regime of state regulation pretty much ensures that. What power does Congress have to intervene in intrastate commerce?
ObamaKare requires everyone to buy what amounts to a one-size-fits-all insurance policy that Obama and Congress insist we MUST buy, in effect, as a congressionally-constructed, newly imagined condition of citizenship.
Beyond its failure to reach to intrastate commerce, how can Congress use the Commerce Clause to penalize non-commercial activity? I.e., the free choice of a citizen to not engage in commerce?
Am I alone in thinking this is is actually an inversion of the Commerce Clause, which renders its original constitutional meaning totally senseless?
Virginia Lawmakers Say "No" To Health Care Reform (First in the Nation)
Idaho first to sign law against health care reform
Kansas one of 37 states challenging federal health care reform (STOPPING THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER!)
I thought Colorado was a lib mecca.
I keep hearing about two different lists, one with pending or passed legislation that has 38 or so states on board, and one that has the states that are planning to have their AG sue.
Does anyone have either of these lists from a reliable source? I would sure appreciate them.
There’s hope for Colorado! Lot’s of patriots here!
The Colorado AG makes a good point. This bill forces people to engag ein interstate commerce and then subjects them to federal interstate commerce laws.
This is slavery, a violation of the 13th amendment.
In a toilet area of the Rocky Grass Blue Grass Festival I saw instructional signs saying, “If it’s yellow it’s mellow. If it’s brown flush it down”.
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.