and so it begins...
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.
Don’t be too excited..our brave Governor declined to sign on..useless putz.
and so it begins...
There’s this article, too.
Obamacare draws ire of state attorneys general; legal action planned
‘”It’s ridiculous to think that the answer to having people who cannot afford health insurance is to pass a law ordering them to purchase policies they can’t afford under penalty of $750 fines,” said attorney and political strategist Mike Baker.’
WOO HOO!
I wonder that, too. If an insurance company is not engaged in interstate commerce ... which they currently do not ... can they be forced to cover pre-existing conditions and not sell catastrophic-only policies, and the like, by the federal government?
This was Boulder where I read this sign or just up the road from there: 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”.
“They’ll force you to buy their treasury notes and other “goods” they deem are for the general welfare.”
They already do - that’s where your Social Security is going.
Umm, OK. And you went from that to “Colorado was a lib mecca”?
If (I say if bc apparently no
law matters anymore) the scotus rules like we hope and
believe it should....the whole ponzi scheme Barry n Nancy
have duped the 45% minority for will collapse
on it’s own fetid corrupt self.
For if you think prems would increase under the
best circumstance in this assanine bill ...
Imagine just how high they would go if
denial of coverage for preexisters was still in play but millions
and millions could just sit it out until they
get really sick.
One more thing...since the rat bastards had
no qualms using reconciliation for this outrage
why doesn’t the GOP cross off some wishes
off it’s wet dream list next time it has 50+ 1?
I hope we stay on offense and make the rats defend
their assanine pathology of a party...
If not we are gonna drown in amnesty and a
perm rat majority thanks to millions of grateful
illegals
Game over if it happens
Well, when we were in Breckenridge a restaurant told us that they didn’t serve french fries. And, that we would have to smoke outside in the back. That was 1997. The bluegrass was year 2009.
Well, I did say ‘almost’, didn’t I?
Cool another one.
Yeah, me too. Suthers has been a good guy since way back in his ElPaso County days.
Re a question that has been asked many times on these 10th Amendment threads, to wit:
What power does Congress have to intervene in intrastate commerce?Now, it would appear to the layman, we mortals, the language contained within our Constitution is plain enough, the primary gist of which is that chains were to be placed on the feral government to keep it within limits acceptable to a people who had just won their freedom from a loopy monarchy in a faraway land. For the most part our Founders were keenly aware of the dangers of an unconstrained government and whether by divine intervention or just plain luck, produced the greatest document(s) for self governance ever known. It goes without saying many of the principles set out in these documents were and are based on Christian precepts. Which coincidentally gives our would-be masters no small degree of heartburn. </preamble>
That said, there have been a number of SCOTUS decisions whereby the black-robed gurus were able to discern nuances, subtleties, and other hidden treasures emanating from the documents the Founders were too shortsighted to put to parchment, another to wit:
Wickard vs. Filburn found that what was essentially a home garden, producing wheat for personal consumption, was within the reach of the interstate commerce clause. My mortal powers of discenment don't bring ME to that conclusion but then I'm not a black-robed guru endowed with the unique ability to perceive such emanations. The back story of FDR's intimidation and manipulation of the SCOTUS during this period is worth a look if you get the time.
Gonzales v. Raich took an unusual twist when one of our conservative, originalist champions, Antonin Scalie, apparently performed some mental gymnastics to arrive at a conclusion favorable to the feral government re medicinal marijuana that ran counter to a simple reading, by we mortals, of the Constitution. His rationale? The "necessary and proper" clause apparently offered up some heretofore unknown emanations.
The dissent, written by a true hero of originalists is absolutely classis; another to wit:
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.
Cheers,
The dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas a true hero and champion of originalists is absolutely classis; another to wit:
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.
Again, cheers,
bttt
Emanations indeed, ForGod's Sake!
As I understand the Court's thinking in this case, the fact that people grow wheat for strictly personal consumption has an effect on the interstate market prices of wheat because such growers, having secured their own wheat supply by the sweat of their own brow, are not market participants for wheat. Because they are not market participants, they have an effect on general (interstate) market prices. That's because, to the extent they grow their own wheat, they reduce market demand proportionately; and where there is reduced demand, reduced prices follow....
Evidently this was the logic behind the astonishingly weird holding in Wickard vs. Filburn, whose main basis was (to me) an extraordinarily bizarre reading of he Commerce Clause. Under this reading, there is no "private behavior" that could ever be beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Presumably, not even breathing — after all, we all "share" the same air....
Certainly the Framers never imagined, let alone intended, the Commerce Clause to be so omnipotent in its reach....
Great to hear from you, ForGod'sSake! Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post!
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.