What are the limits?

There are 4 Constitutional defects in the new Health Care Law:

These primarily address what Congress has ordered the states to do and what it has ordered individuals to do.

1.  It has ordered the states to increase/collect taxes and to spend the taxes as the Federal Gov't has ordered.

2.  It has ordered individuals to purchase health insurance that is approved and acceptable to Federal bureaucrats.

3.  Transfers regulation of health care from the states to the Federal gov't.

4.  Puts a Federal bureaucrat between patients and physicians.

Can the Federal government tell the states how to spend state-generated taxes?  No.  None of this falls anywhere near the enumerated powers, the "general welfare" clause or the "commerce clause."  When the states created the Federal government they specifically retained for themselves the power to legislate for the health, safety, welfare and morality of their citizens.

Even though the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted since the FDR era and used to wedge Federal authority where it doesn't belong that is not its original intent, or even reasonably near it.   The Commerce Clause give Congress the power  "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."  The power is to REGULATE, to make regular, to standardize, etc.  This clause was added into the Constitution specifically because no such clause existed in the Articles of Confederation and the lack thereof cause certain problems.  For instance, one state could charge a tariff against the other states when certain other states had no tariff, or one state could refuse to allow import of a certain product from a certain state while allowing import of the same product from another.  The idea was to allow Congress to make commerce between the several states REGULAR, or standard.  Given the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause you can literally justify any action whatsoever with it.  I will not take the time to explain that in this posting but most on the left and right, including my leftist Constitutional Law Professor agreed.  However, the Supreme Court of the United States has made mistakes before and corrected them and its high time they start scaling back the scope of authority justified under the Commerce Clause.

The regulation of health care has been done by the states for the past 200 years.  Furthermore, Congress cannot constitutionally order us to do eat or to take our vitamins, they are both beneficial to ourselves and sometimes to those around us, but that is outside the scope of their authority, just like ordering us to purchase health care insurance.  The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has held that the most private of all conversations are the conversations between a patient and physician and between a client and attorney, yet the Health Care law recently signed by President Obama (POTUS) violates that privacy by requiring physicians to share that information with Federal bureaucrats, and allowing those bureaucrats to direct the physician how to administer care to the patients!

Congress can't run the Post Office or Amtrak, it has bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  Can our Congress be entrusted to run our health care system?  Of course not.

It seems our current Congress most of all, and past ones, even Republican ones, recognizes no limits to its power or authority.  This is absolutely 180 degrees out of sync with the foundational philosophy which gave rise to our system of government and our Constitution.

If you are of the political mindset that the Constitution means whatever the people, or Congress, the President or the courts say it does -- that it can be molded to meet the times I ask you one question.  What then ARE their limits?

Tom

Obama's Speaks about his Constitutional Philosophy

On Jan. 18, 2001, then-state senator Barack Obama appeared on a public radio chat show to discuss "The Courts and Civil Rights."

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.  Obama added, "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

It isn't a shock to me that there are some out there that believe this way in regards to our Constitution, what is a shock to me is that someone that believes this way can plainly state it and then get elected President of the United States.  It isn't groundbreaking for a Conservative like me to say that the Constitution isn't a living document.  It IS a document that will and can adapt through the processes placed inside it to any future circumstances in that it allows for our legislative process and the Amendment process.  The idea of it simply being twisted in a way that would make Cirque du Soleil performers humbled is terrifying.  Those that interpret our Constitution the way our current President does are not confident it can be changed through legitimate constitutional mechanisms.  I invite the opposition to openly and plainly petition the American people for Amendments as Obama would like them.  I'm not scared of the will of the American people.  The American people as a whole are not ideological, but they are governed by common sense and a sense of self-interest (not selfishness, there is a big difference) that will not allow them to agree with a redistribution of wealth scheme or a scheme that would openly take away their freedoms.

President Obama, our Constitution IS a charter of negative freedoms because it was designed to govern a free people.  For instance, the negative rights that tell the Federal government what it can't do also allow the States or the people to decidedly DO those things (refer to the 9th and 10th amendments).  For instance, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for Universal Health Care, Government-run Health Care, Government-controlled Health Care, a Right to Health Care, a Patient's Bill of Rights, or anything of the kind unless you torture the 'general welfare,' 'interstate commerce,' or the 'necessary and proper' clauses to death.  However, the polity of any particular state could get together and vote in such a thing, much like Massachussetts did under Mitt Romney.  If you take this example to its Constitutional conclusion you can see that we would have 50 different laboratories around the country to try out any idea that a FREE people decide to try, and its possible that ALL 50 might decide to do such a thing but the federal government has NO RIGHT!   The biggest restriction upon the states is that they are Constutionally required to maintain a republican form of government.  Most people don't understand that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would simply allow each state to decide for itself whether or not to allow abortion to be legal, it would not illegalize abortion but would leave it up to the people of that particular state.  Also, legalization of marijuana and other drugs.  Imagine a constitutional America where the the upper NW like Oregon and Washington legalized pot and abortion but the SE U.S. is still no-drugs and no-abortion.  Imagine what that would be like, a country where we stand united against the world and for our allies but we have the freedom to live how we see fit by exercising our vote, our voice or ultimately, our feet (by moving to a state that reflects our views).  I believe THAT is a simplified example of the vision our Founder's saw, modernized.  Its also called 'Federalism.'

Once again I would love to see your comments here at the Guerrilla Conservative.

Thanks,

Tom