George Will: Is there no limit to Congress’s power?

The Washington Post ^ | November 18, 2011 | George F. Will

[2ndDivisionVet]

Shortly before the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed its constitutionality. Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee, brusquely acknowledged that upholding the mandate means there is no limit to Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. Fortunately, Silberman’s stark assertion may strengthen the counterargument. Silberman forces the Supreme Court’s five conservatives to face the sobering implications of affirming the power asserted with the mandate.

Does Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce empower it to compel individuals, as a condition of living in the United States, to engage in a commercial activity? If any activity, or inactivity, can be said to have economic consequences, can it be regulated — or required — by Congress? Can Congress forbid the inactivity of not purchasing a product (health insurance) from a private provider? Silberman says yes:

“We acknowledge some discomfort with the government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce. But to tell the truth, those limits are not apparent to us, either because the power to require the entry into commerce is symmetrical with the power to prohibit or condition commercial behavior, or because we have not yet perceived a qualitative limitation. That difficulty is troubling, but not fatal, not least because we are interpreting the scope of a long-established constitutional power, not recognizing a new constitutional right.”(continued)

[Texas Fossil]

The day of his coronation (inauguration) I made this statement here on FR.

“Welcome to New Kenya (Africa USA) Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land.”

Frightening thought.

[Travis McGee]

RIP USA.

[Lady Lucky]

Maybe it’s time for a con-con

Like a Sidney Poitier/Tony Curtis flick. Yes! I'll bring the popcorn.

[Texas Fossil]

I’m saying that anyone who has any illusions of leading a mass movement against tyranny

What do you think the T-Party is about? What do you think the Oath Keepers are about? Do you have any clue what cemented the culture in some states (TX included) toward hating abusive government. To resist tyranny does not require breaking the law at this point. Speaking of breaking the law. What do you think the useful idiots that Obozo's OWS crowd is paying to live in parks is doing? Seems some of those vile creatures have been arrested.

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"

Reverse side of the First Committee U.S. seal proposal.

The first committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.

Franklin chose an allegorical scene from Exodus, described in his notes as "Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity." Motto, "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"

Reverse side of the First Committee U.S. seal proposal.

The first committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.

Franklin chose an allegorical scene from Exodus, described in his notes as "Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity." Motto, "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

[corlorde]

Bookmark!

[listenhillary]

"They don’t have to nationalize the medical profession. It would be done by nationalizing the Insurance industry. Though I believe I am a strong conservative/libertarian, I do believe that this is the way it should be done."

Are the "private" insurance companies allowed to have profits? Shareholders? How about we try something radical, like making people pay for their own health care with their own dollars? Price shop for the best care at the best price?

Wikipedia
The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain fascist, economic nationalist, populist and/or national liberation policies that industry should be owned by the state on behalf of the citizenry to allow for consolidation of resources and central planning or control for the purposes of economic development.

Nationalization was one of the major strategies advocated by socialists for transitioning to socialism. Socialist perspectives that favor nationalization are typically called state socialism. The goals of nationalization in this context were to dispossess large capitalists and redirect the profits from them to the public purse, as a precursor to the long-term goals of the establishment of worker-management and reorganizing production toward use.

[musicman]

Know What Your Gov't Is Up To
By Keeping The News Going
On The WWW #1 Conservative Site
Free Republic!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[DTogo]

...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[magooey]

We're from the government and we're here to [BLANK] you.

From the MATCH Game. That is funny as all heck! :)

[musicman]

[I am Richard Brandon]

So Congress can compel me to purchase a membership of (say) The Communist Party?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

In 2002, one-third of the populace already believed that “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is in the Constitution!

Can’t happen here. Nope.

[magooey]

“Open revolt” means, at the very least:

1. You, personally, will be cuffed, booked, jailed, charged, tried, and, if found guilty, imprisoned;

2. You will lose your job and/or business, and with it your income;

Well, in that case, no revolution would ever succeed. However, as President Kennedy put it, those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.

As to number 1, well they do have to get it all past a jury. After the Hutaree debacle it may well be that a jury will look very closely at politically motivated prosecutions. Abuse of prosecutorial discretion will add to the deligitimization of the current government.

A government under the thumb of a tyrant, but whose legitimacy is based on a carefully written and spelled out Constitution and Declaration of Independence, is readily moving towards serious political disequilibria. The question really becomes whether the current government and its backers are willing to spill enough blood to keep power.

With the death panels being implemented under Obamacare, it is clear that the current regime is Dracula-level bloodthirsty.

As to 2., there is a reason why the concept of political asylum exists. Even Lenin had to leave his homeland, to come back later by the Finland Station.

In apparent response to the claim of the President-Elect Obama and his entourage that he would "rule", the then President Bush made it clear that "govern" was the proper word in the USA. There is still hope, despite the sans coulotte Occupiers sharing similarities with the Nazi Revolution.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

the "limit" to Congress's power will be reached in November of 2012.....scorched earth....

You aren't going to get a House any better than the one we have now - waffling, talking big then caving. You aren't going to get 60 Republicans in the Senate, much less 60 conservatives. That would require 75 Republicans. 20-30% of Republicans are really Democrat infiltrators who vote mostly conservative until it matters. That's why you get stuff failing by ONE vote, like the Abortion and Balanced Budget Amendments some years ago. You think you're close but if you got 15 more REAL conservatives, important matters would STILL fail by one vote.

[ClearCase_guy]

I agree. The electoral process isn’t going to fix our broken society. In order to fix it, we need to break it some more. I think we won’t get better until after the war.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The limit to the powwer of Congress is when you start shooting them.

Not suggesting that as a course of action. But the limit to the power of government is not in any document or vote for the lesser of two evils. The limit has always been in self-restraint and humility of officials based on ideology or fear of the people. The old American ideology is dead. And officials who simply move between offices of power and ultra-lucrative lobbying, media and no-work corporate board positions when they lose, have no fear of your voting them out.

And it has been over 200 years since we shot them in any numbers.

[trek]

Lincoln killed the Old Republic 1787-1861.

And the "new" one appears to be nearing its end.

[mcshot]

...”sharing similarities with the Nazi Revolution.”

I just watched a program on the History Channel that showed the great effort Hitler made to keep his family genealogy Hidden and sealed. Seems he wasn’t so pure of blood and the similarities with present times hit me like a boulder.

[DNME]

I find it chilling that so many of us are willing to consider armed revolt against our own government. As King Theoden said in Lord of the Rings, “How did it come to this?”

But come it has. We are living under the iron boot of tyranny, no question about it. If we don’t throw all the bastards out, we’re so utterly screwed that history won’t even remember us. Shooting them would be quicker but voting them out is our last resort, our final chance to enact change legally.

I have to agree with Space Patrol that revolt is an all-or-nothing proposition. If you try it alone, you are toast. If you try it along with 50 friends, you’ll be hunted down and destroyed. But if EVERYBODY turned out armed and furious, there’s be a (slim) chance they’d back down in the face of a total insurrection.

Put me in the “No Fear of a ConCon” camp. The Conventioneers can write any damn thing they want ... but the states won’t pass anything crazy. The ConCon offers the states an alternative way to pass Amendments, especially those that Congress won’t touch, such as Term Limits or a rewording of the Commerce Clause. (Let’s throw in a firm definition of Natural Born Citizen while we’re writing Amendments, eh?)

We will wait a very long time for any of those actions to clear Congress, I can guarantee.

With the Constitution on the ropes, maybe an Article V convention is our last, best chance to take advantage of the Supreme Law Of The Land while it’s still in effect.

[Usagi_yo]

How about we try something radical, like making people pay for their own health care with their own dollars? Price shop for the best care at the best price? Nationalizing, providing then taxing fits that description pretty good. Insurance is *inherently* a socialistic system albeit run by private enterprise. Besides, this is basicaly done already with medicare for those over 65. Most people 15+ years from 65 don't realize that once you turn 65, your health insurance is provided by the government. People are already taxed for this 15% SSI, 5% Medicare (1/2 from employeer, half from employee). The money is just raided and reallocated and borrowed -- which goes to the part of your quote of mine that you left out. That its the optimum solution, I just don't believe that it can be done cleanly without "special interest" clauses bought from corrupt politicians. It's gotta be a go or no-go plan. Rejected in its entirety or accepted in its entirety.