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?
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,