The Commerce Clause Must be Redefined

Thursday, July 14th, 2011 11:27 pm by mikeinvaldosta

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power granting the United States Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people. With every passing day, the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment become more contradictory than the precedent day. At present, the Commerce Clause has eroded the Tenth Amendment to the point of obsolescence.

The very core of Federalism is built upon the limited powers of the Federal Government and the unique privileges granted to the individual states allowing them to write their own laws. The freedoms that all American’s derive from The Creator serve as an obstruction to Federal power, as does the Tenth Amendment, this is how the framers saw the role of government. Those that wish to expand the power and reach of the Federal government have successfully sought to utilize the vague Commerce Clause to trump both the Federal government’s limitations and the powers granted to the individual states by the Tenth Amendment.

The phrase “General Welfare” exists twice in the United States Constitution presenting another open door for those that desire to expand the scope and reach of Federal government power. The latter reference, in the Taxing and Spending Clause, is often referred to as the General Welfare Clause. Unlike the Commerce Clause, the so called General Welfare Clause has, in the past, lacked the specificity required to trump most state laws.

Today, America’s citizens are faced with a severe and imposing challenge to their individual freedoms. The Tenth Amendment, the very facilitator of our country’s nearest approach to true democracy, is under assault once again by the Commerce Clause and the ever growing General Welfare provision within the Taxing and Spending Clause. This assault arrived within a Trojan horse titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, which was signed into law March 23, 2010.

Obamacare is under constitutional challenge due to its mandate that citizens purchase healthcare insurance or face penalty within the tax code. The Obama administration, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democratic members of congress they lead, base the legality of the Obamacare mandate upon the Commerce Clause and, to a lesser extent, the General Welfare “Clause.”

The basis for the reliance on the Commerce Clause lies within Medicare and Medicaid, two 1965 government programs enacted over one hundred fifty years after the ratification of the United States Constitution, as well as the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (Social Security) of 1935, that claimed constitutionality upon the General Welfare “Clause” and the Commerce Clause. All three programs, if offered by a private company, would qualify as the largest Ponzi scheme ever inflicted upon a people.

The central element of the Obamacare mandate revolves around the ultimate cost to the Federal government to provide healthcare to a citizen that does not have insurance or the financial wherewithal to purchase their healthcare. Ultimately, the Obama administration will rely upon the vague Commerce Clause in that the cost of the healthcare resulted in a cross state lines financial transaction due to the bill being picked up by the Federal government.

When this issue arrives at the Supreme Court, which it is sure to do, the stakes will go far beyond the constitutionality of Obamacare. At stake is our, every individual citizen’s, right to live our lives as we see fit. Should the court uphold Obamacare and its assertion that our health is an interstate commerce issue that falls under the Commerce clause, there is no facet of our lives that the Federal government will be prevented from legislating. The very powers the founding fathers sought to limit will become unlimited due to the Federal entitlement granted by Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare.

You may believe universal healthcare is a good thing, a thing an advanced nation such as The United States of America should provide. That is not the primal issue at stake. The means by which the Obama administration wishes to achieve this goal represents the largest affront to our individual freedoms since the British last fired upon our shores.

The Commerce Clause was never intended to be a back door to dominance of the governed. The sole intention of the Commerce Clause was to provide a legal framework for the resolution of issues involving multiple states and jurisdictions.

Should Obamacare be upheld, the Federal government’s power will no longer be limited of its citizens. There will be no activity in your life that can involve a consequence to your health that will not be subjected to the legislative powers of Congress.

It is paramount that Obamacare be defeated and the Supreme Court redefines the reach of the Commerce Clause.

One Response to “The Commerce Clause Must be Redefined”

  1. southchild » Blog Archive » Welcome, MikeinValdosta, and Big News southchild.com readers! Says:

    [...] we’d like to welcome MikeinValdosta as a new writer. Check out his articles, The Commerce Clause Must be Redefined and The Wisdom of Checks and Balances for a taste of what’s to come. You’re going to [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.