Another Legal Ruling and the Abused Commerce Clause

At least one judge stands against the absurd and twisted idea not buying a product is commerce. For those judges and others needing a refresher, let’s review the definition:

com·merce — noun. An interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

In previous cases (RAICH, the court ruled commerce entirely within a state (intra-state commerce) could be regulated under inter-state commerce authority. As bizarre and 1984-esque as that sounds, the national healthcare plan (aka “Obamacare”) takes it a step further — not engaging in commerce at all turns out to be interstate commerce.

It’s an huge expansion of federal authority, and by the same justification the federal government can control when you use the bathroom, what you eat, what car you drive (and when, and how much), where you live, whether you use cash, credit, or debit to pay for purchases (and when), and anything else they dream up.

It’s the end of the Republic. If upheld, the federal government has unlimited power for any action they wish, and the states and individuals must bow to the elites running Washington — the exact situation the Founders desired to avoid as activist judges abuse the commerce clause to redefine not only The Constitution, but English language.

Fortunately one judge ruled against the abuse, noting the extreme expansion of federal power under the absurd definition of commerce.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended the Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.

Because an individual’s personal decision to purchase—or decline to purchase—health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not provide a safe sanctuary.
Virginia vs Kathleen Sebelius 3:10CV199-HEH (Dec 13, 2010)

Similar to earlier Supreme justices, he notes if this justification proceeds no limit on federal control would ever exist. The future Supreme Court decision on national healthcare will likely be a 5-4 decision; liberal activist judges have no problem vastly expanding federal power, while constitutional judges won’t be too keen on redefining English language, and those roles on the court are set. But one judge will be the swing vote — one judge basically deciding the future of the Republic.

The unchecked expansion of Congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about in individual’s right to choose to participate.
Virginia vs Kathleen Sebelius 3:10CV199-HEH (Dec 13, 2010)

This judge agrees with previous Supreme Court justices — if this absurd Commerce Clause abuse is allowed to stand no limits on Federal power will ever be recognized again. The food police love expanded federal power as it provides the power to regulate your twinkie intake.

Of course, some actually want to use national healthcare as a tool towards socialism and massive increases in federal oversight and control, a not new idea.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. (Ronald Reagan)

Those who pound the table supporting the national healthcare’s abuse of the commerce clause would do well to consider it also justifies the Patriot act and it’s monitoring of citizens from the same argument — even if you don’t engage in interstate commerce, it really is, and can be regulated and punished if not followed.

Will Obamacare be the end of the Republic? It will if this abusive interpretation of the commerce clause stands.

Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. (Ronald Reagan)

Filed Under: The Constitution

Recommended Citation:
Yeager, Darrin "Another Legal Ruling and the Abused Commerce Clause" (2023-11-23 14:45),
Copyright 1998–2023. All rights reserved.

Copyright ©Frames of Reference LLC 1998–2023