A federal judge rules that it is constitutional for Our Glorious Leaders to force us all to buy health insurance. Ain’t freedom grand?
And guess which clause of the Big Con justifies it. Just have yourself one tiny little guess. It won’t take long.
Yeah, I know. This won’t be the last decision on the matter. And you can call it tyranny all you like (and you’ll be right). But it’s getting downright funny, the many ways in which that old Constitution can be folded, spindled, and multilated. The logic, if you can call it that, is hysterical. Actually, it was hysterical on both sides in this particular case.
Funny, too, how in our “democracy,” one man — and a federal appointee and a tax-sucker, besides — is taken seriously when he arbitrarily decrees matters of The Highest Law.
My question, is by what law, tradition, or provision of the Constitution, does a lowly district court judge, an employee of the justice department, have to rule on what the U.S. Congress does?
I might be incorrect, but even if his ruling was to stand, it would only apply to that district, not the U.S. as a whole.
Matt, I believe you’re correct that the ruling (if it stands) would apply only in that judge’s district.
And as to what law, tradition, or provision … why, dontcha know that the Founders put the general welfare clause and the commerce clause in there because they thought unlimited government and government by unelected nobodies was a good idea? They were just waiting for politicians to figure it out …
Really, the whole thing is so bad it’s funny. Tragically, miserably, wretchedly funny, granted. But so very seriously funny that judges are likely to put comedians out of business.
“First they came for the uninsured…”
This all derives from one bad Supreme Court decision, in the ’30s, that was made after that old Communist Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court. It’s high time that gets overturned. The decision was clearly beyond what the Founders intended – ruling that the mere possibility of an effect on interstate commerce was grounds for Congress to regulate it. For the first 150 years of this country, only actual interstate commerce could be regulated – as it was intended.
Taken to an extreme (and we’re getting there) there is nothing that can’t be regulated by Congress. Even your breathing has an impact on interstate commerce – there are companies that extract oxygen from the air and sell it in interstate commerce – so if you breathe too much, you increase CO2 and lower O2 (and boost those terrible greenhouse gases too!).
The problem really isn’t the Constitution – any document can be corrupted by ill intentioned people. The problem is the people who have let it happen. It’s time to take the country back.
Must be feeling snarky today. Radley Balko’s question:
“Under an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that says the federal government can regulate inactivity, can you name anything at all that the feds wouldn’t have the power to regulate?”
Indeed. And somehow, that resonated with recent events. I think the FedGov can now officially adopt the motto:
“Yes, we can regulate inactivity. No pressure.”
Tell me someone isn’t working on that right now.
While I’d argue that limiting government was never the real intention of the Constitution, can we all now just agree on one manifest fact: that it is in fact not possible to limit the scope and power of government?
Admitting that might allow us to move past tinkering on “solutions” that can at best only mask the problem, and more likely exacerbate it.
Especially since nowadays the US government, again pretty plainly, no longer feels compelled to pretend to be limited by the Constitution, the chimerical rule of law, or indeed any form of restraint or human decency.
Victor, You can argue that limiting government was not the intention of the Constitution but you would be wrong.
From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights… “…THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:…”
Restrictive clauses…Like saying ‘hey feds….you can’t do that.’ We, the States and the People are only giving you enumerated powers. And that LIMITS what the federal government is authorized to do. This was further clarified in the 10th Amendment.
But you go right ahead and argue wrongly and bend over and take whatever the government decides it can do to you.
Since you’re trusting enough to take Statist statements at face value, I reckon the government will be occupied enough with you – and the rest of the uncritical – not to get to me for very long time.
Maybe there’s hope yet: Quote: However, the former attorneys general wrote that “no amount of wordplay can convert the failure to engage in commerce into commerce, much less interstate commerce. The decision not to buy insurance is not a transaction in insurance, health care or any other commerce.”
http://hamptonroads.com/node/572520