What is judicial activism? Many slap it on any court decision they don’t like. In reality it’s failing to follow The Constitution, changing the clear and plain meaning. We recently noted how the government would defend Obamacare (using an abuse of the commerce clause). The Virginia court cites that bizarre activist ruling as a precedent in upholding forced nationalized healthcare.
The current debate over the national healthcare plan (aka “Obamacare”) centers over the constitutionality of forcing someone to buy a product or face possible jail time — in effect, you’re a criminal just for being born. A recent decision came in Virgina, and as we thought, the reason given to uphold the mandate comes from a strange redefining of the commerce clause. Here’s part of the ruling:
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce … among the several States … ” … Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons or things in interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. [Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 16-17 (2005)].
“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the Court’s task “is a modest one.” [Id. at 22]. The Court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ’rational basis’ exists for so concluding.” [Id]. Congress must have a rational basis for determining that the “total incidence” of the class of activity substantially affects interstate commerce; … see also id. at 22 (“That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment.”). Where the regulated class of activities is within the reach of federal power, “the courts have no power to excise, as trivial, individual instances of the class.” [Id. at 23] (quotations omitted).
Local activity, regardless of whether it is commercial in nature, may still be reached by Congress if it “exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” [Raich, 545 U.S. at 17]. Liberty University, et al V US (US District Court, Virgina CASE NO. 6:10-cv-00015-nkm)
Notice the ruling relies heavily on one case (Gonzales v. Raich) which we’ve noted as an abuse of the commerce clause. The case involved a person performing an action legal under California law, but not Federal. Which should take precedence? Is a non-commerce activity performed entirely within one state (not crossing state lines) allowed to be regulated by the Federal Government under an abuse of the commerce clause? The answer will surprise you as it’s not common sense, rather it’s an example of Orwell’s DoubleThink.
… the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. … the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. GONZALES v. RAICH 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html)
Notice “the court established”, not the Constitution. This power didn’t exist before the court created it out of thin air — an activist ruling and an abuse of the commerce clause (and common sense).
The court ruled something produced and consumed entirely within a state (INTRAstate commerce) is really INTERstate commerce (in a 1984esq demonstration of DoubleThink Orwell would be proud of). That logic — if it is upheld on appeal — means the Federal government has authority to regulate and control with no limits whatsoever, as not buying a product becomes within Federal control.
Ask yourself (whether you’re for or against nationalized health care), does that make sense? Of course not. A few justices noted the problems with the case, and the bizarre precedent it provides if this logic is upheld, noting in their dissent to the RAICH ruling:
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.
The Court’s definition of economic activity is breathtaking. It defines as economic any activity involving the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. And it appears to reason that when an interstate market for a commodity exists, regulating the intrastate manufacture or possession of that commodity is constitutional either because that intrastate activity is itself economic, or because regulating it is a rational part of regulating its market. GONZALES v. RAICH 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
As two forward-thinking Justices note, if this is upheld, no limit on federal power can be recognized … ever. You went to bed in a Republic, and woke up in an oligarchy, as a small group of elites makes laws for everyone else (which they’re conveniently exempt from), with no check or balance on their power. Can tyranny be far behind?
That’s the background; back to the current healthcare case as the judge concludes:
I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market. Liberty University, et al V US (US District Court, Virgina CASE NO. 6:10-cv-00015-nkm)
One final stunning error: no interstate insurance market exists as it’s not permitted to sell insurance across state lines — the judge mixed up healthcare (doctors) with insurance (how it’s paid for).
The Federal government can not only force you to buy a product against your will (which isn’t offered across state lines, thus can’t by definition be interstate commerce), they can determine how you pay for products (cash verses insurance), and when you pay for them.
Twisted logic like this used to justify national socialized healthcare will end the Republic, fundamentally transforming the country from its roots into an oligarchy (rule by the few).
If upheld by the Supreme Court, the country is finished. It really is that serious, although strange all the pundits don’t seem to talk about it much, instead focusing on partisan attacks. The Founders certainly didn’t intend for such a result in government, and if people want to change from a Republic to an Oligarchy the country should at least have a debate about it, instead of it being stolen by elites — the very definition of judicial activism. It’s too bad Franklin’s skepticism about maintaining the Republic turns out to be true:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
It appears we can’t, as many worry more about “Dancing with the Stars” than passing to their children a functioning government of freedom. Ask someone what poses a larger threat: ignorance or apathy and you’ll get the response “I don’t know, and I don’t care”.
If the Supreme Court upholds this decision via an abused commerce clause, it will be the end of the Republic — the Supreme Court itself may as well close it’s doors, as it means they voted to make themselves (and The Constitution) irrelevant, giving the national government unlimited power to do anything, anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Can you think of anything which doesn’t have an economic impact eventually somewhere else? If you use the restroom, you flush… and that’s water … which could affect supply somewhere else … which is interstate commerce!
Yes, the logic justifying nationalized healthcare gives the Federal government the right to regulate how and when you use the toilet … or shower … or heat your home … or use lights … or drive your car … or anything else they dream up (just by citing another abuse of the commerce clause).
Read the court decision for yourself, and then ask: what would be prohibited under such an interpretation, and is that what the Founders intended?
The country is being stolen right before your eyes as too many people sleep while the bus intentionally drives off the cliff — as long as they get free stuff, they’ll let a small group drive off the cliff as long as they get free drinks on the plummet to the rocky shore below.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [money] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
What characterizes elections today? Which guy promises the most from the trough — who can give out more of other peoples money; national subsidized (paid for in part by other people) healthcare certainly fits into that role.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. Usually attributed to Alexander Tytler
As citizens willingly give up their freedom for handouts, where is the United States on that list?
It’s the end of the Republic as we know it.
Want to know more about Biblical prophecy and where world events head? Get our book on Daniel and understand Daniel’s famous 70 week prophecy. You must understand Daniel or you’ll become hopelessly lost in Revelation.
Like this article? Stay up to date with new articles and content. It’s free, and we won’t sell your information.
SIGN UP TODAY by entering your primary email address below to guarantee you won’t miss anything.
