ObamaCare, ObamaCars, and Government-Mandated Broccoli
The answer to that question given earlier this year by U. C. Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky was that Congress could make people buy cars but “what people choose to eat well might be regarded as a personal liberty” beyond Congress’s power. See reason.tv, “Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful.”
Chemerinsky’s answer highlights the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals favor expanded federal power to direct society toward good things and if government goes too far — directing us what to eat — some judge, searching through the penumbras of the Constitution will surely create a right not to eat broccoli. Conservatives believe freedom lies in limiting government to its enumerated powers. The right not to eat broccoli (and to decide whether to join Weight Watchers) comes not from beneficent judges but from the limitations inherent in the language of the Commerce Clause.
The Sixth Circuit majority relied heavily on its assertion that the health care market is unique, implicitly treating ObamaCare as a one-off constitutional issue. But once the individual mandate becomes part of Congress’s power to regulate commerce it is hard to see how it will not be used elsewhere as the occasion arises.
On Monday, the New York Times reported in a front-page story that the Obama administration and the auto industry are “locked in negotiations over new vehicle mileage and emissions standards that will have a profound effect on the cars Americans drive and the health of the auto industry over the next decade and beyond.” Obama wants new cars and trucks to average 56 miles per gallon with increases in fuel efficiency starting in 2017. The problem is not technical but economic and political.
The automakers say the standard is technically achievable. But they warn that it will cost billions of dollars to develop the vehicles and they express doubt that consumers will accept the smaller, lighter — and in some cases, more expensive — cars that result.
Perhaps the answer is an Individual Car Mandate. Once the constitutionality of the individual mandate has been established the problem of costs and customers will disappear in other areas as well. Like the insurance companies who did not effectively oppose ObamaCare once they were assured of millions of new mandatory customers to cover their costs the car companies will undoubtedly be reassured if there is an individual mandate on people to buy their cars. Most industries will produce whatever the government wants as long as politicians assure them people will have to buy it whether they like it or not.
In 2010, Obama informed Massachusetts voters that “everybody can buy a truck.” Earlier this year he advised those concerned about high gas prices to trade in their vans for new ones with better mileage. If Congress can impose an individual car mandate the decision on buying an ObamaCar may not be an individual one since a mandate may be required for them to work.
It seems doubtful the Founders thought the six-word grant of power in the Commerce Clause would be used in this fashion and it is troubling that two distinguished professors and an editor of a national magazine were unable to answer Will’s question about Weight Watchers. They could not, in other words, articulate where the principle – once established – might stop. Perhaps, like the Sixth Circuit, they were simply unwilling to acknowledge where their position will take us.
This guy thinks he was elected KING. It is up to us to disabuse him of that idea in November of 2012. Unless you like being told what to do; in that case there is nothing you cannot be forced to do. Think about it.
Ah yes, the political “Butterfly Effect”. If a fat guy in Texas eats a Twix, a preschooler in California goes without her government subsidized Title IX iPad.
If Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will be the end of Federalism. I really fear for this country because, if allowed to go into effect, Obamacare will wipe out just about every right you have as an American. If the government can tell you what insurance to get and how to actually LIVE under the terms of that insurance (such as what you can eat, how much you can weigh, what treatment you can get, and what treatment can be withheld from you if you are too old), it can tell you to do just about anything simply by passing a law. The Federal Government can tell you what guns you can have (if any), regardless of the Second Amendment. It can tell you what car to buy, such as making you buy one from Government Motors (GM). It can do that simply by placing taxes on the other car companies, making it too expensive to buy any car other than those made at GM. The Feds can tell you what type of house you can have, how you can heat or cool that house, and what you have to do before you can actually sell that house (if you have to follow a bunch of EPA requirements before selling). It can tell you what to eat, where to live, and how much you’re allowed to keep from your pitiful little salary. Remember, the government always says “it” knows best how to spend your money, NOT you.
Is this the America we want to live in? Is this the America we grew up in? Is this the America we want our kids to grow up in? No, absolutely not.
So remember, folks, elections DO have consequences. You got a taste of our future under Obama. The only thing we still have the power to do is vote, before they take that away from us too. Now more than ever, we need to throw out every far-left liberal and RINO that will not return this country to where it once was, a nation built on individual freedom and liberty. 2012 will be the tipping point. Either we elect a conservative, or the country re-elects Obama and we are through. It really is up to us to end this liberal nightmare and let this country be what it once was, a shining example of how individualism and individual rights allows any person to reach their fullest potential. We need that now, more than ever.
Libertyship, you are absolutely right. Obamacare was never intended to be about health care, but about absolute power over the people! It has been tried many times, always ends in the death of many and the unlimited power of the few. Our beautiful USA has been the world’s best hope. Perhaps we need to take on the complicit press more?
If Obamacare stands, or if the next election comes down to Romney vs. Obama, or if Obama is re-elected (probably via election theft), I predict that we will begin to see large-scale emigration from the US.
Pajamas Media readers probably don’t realize this, given the fact that PJM provides an audience for an overtly bigoted anti-Russian columnist (who I will not publicize any further by offering a name or a link), but the fact is that Russia is a far freer country than is the US. We know Americans who have gone there and have seen it for themselves.
Unbelievable. I can easily answer the question posed to the panelist. No, it’s unconstutional, becuase we have a limited government that is given enumerated powers. The powers not expressly given to the government are reserved to the states or the people as per the The 10th Amendment. The commerce clause is ment to settle trade disputes between the states, not to force citizens to buy any type of insurance.
Meant to settle trade disputes between the states? Joe, c’mon, you are just not seeing things right. Read that clause again. It very plainly says Uncle Sam can tell you what temperature to set your thermostat on. You just arent reading it carefully enough.
The real question is whether might makes right.
The answer is that it does not.
My major concern: “individual freedom and liberty” require an educational system that barely exists anymore in America — one that teaches critical thinking skills….and patriotism. First, educators “teach to the test.” If it’s not on the test, it doesn’t get taught. Then administrators erase incorrect answers and replace them with the correct answers. (Atlanta, etc.) How can any student reach his/her full potential under those circumstances? How thoughtful will his/her vote be if s/he hasn’t learned to look for substance and honesty rather than be swayed by nebulous words like “change”?
People do or can cross state boundaries, ergo, people may, like interstate shipments of pork chops, be regulated, totally. Why putz around with half measures, petty arguments about a formerly free persons choice of health care, go whole hog. A person can cross a state boundary, the government therefore owns his ass and can do what it will. A leftist’s dream, and that of every mind killing, human hating thug down through the centuries.
Leftist savages have finally come out of the closet.
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America. — James Madison
I say that the people of the third world countries are showing us the way by demonstrating against their dictators and we should be organizing and doing the same, at the polls. It is time for the people to take charge since the federal government and those we have sent to Washington are not willing to save this great nation. If we don’t take this dictator and his minions out of office in the next election, this Nation will be filled with nothing but fears and tears.
Harvard Professor Jill Lepore got 2 out of 3 right, seems to me.
Anti-Intellectual: Yup, since yall have so corrupted the meaning of the word so there is nothing Intellectual among Intellectuals.
Anti-Pluralist: Depends on which definition she’s using. But it’s probably a synonym for uncompromising, and since we know the Lib definition of Compromise is ‘agree with us’ that label also applies. Or the other definitions, like we don’t care for other countries’ laws applied here and we don’t jive with identity or tribal politics.
Anti-History made me laff though. Which history? The history that shows Socialism doesn’t work, the history that shows oppressive governments don’t last, the history that shows Keynesian economics doesn’t work, the history of the Founders, the history of America, the history of the mass-murdering Soviet Union, the history of the National Socialist Party, the eugenic-driven history of Planned Parenthood or the history of politicos’ statements vs their voting records?
Which history don’t we ‘get’ again?
The constitution was written in plain language for plain understanding by plain, everyday citizens. It says what it means and means what it says, on it’s face. The Power-hungry and their prey, the frightened people who wish for a magical solution to make boogey-men go away, have redefined common words to uncommon meanings, used convoluted, obfuscating logic and generally ignored the intent of the constitution until there is no recognizable connection between the document as it is written and its actually being put into practice.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ”
A cursory study of American history will tell why this is included in congress’s powers. The various states at that time were making a wreck of interstate commerce with protectionist BS. The clause is intended to smooth out interstate commerce and remove barriers between the states. To say that a person growing wheat for their own consumption is somehow commerce, interstate or otherwise, is an absurd redefining of the common word commerce. To now say that citizens must purchase anything is an absurd redefining of the common word ‘regulate’. No plain-thinking, ordinary american sees that in the text of the clause.
“Congress shall make no law….” has become “Congress shall make many laws…”
“…..shall not be infringed.” has become “may severely restrict.”
“…to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches…” has become “…may be searched, shot, or seized at the pleasure of the government.”
Yep, I could go on all day with these.
For Stengel, Dyson, Lepore, Chemerinsky and countless others, a good ‘trip to the woodshed’ with a hickory stick is sorely needed. For what these people have done to our country, a good, solid, old-fashioned ass-whipping is in order. I mean the kind that sticks with you for a long time.
I’d submit that we have ‘educated’ ourselves out of the Constitution, and that in giving rein to the multicultural classes, we’ve lost the ability to understand it and the protections against tyranny within it.
We like to say that the Constitution was written so that ordinary citizens could read it an understand it. Sadly, our basic education and literacy is not the same as it used to be, and our children- well, anyone born after the late 50s or 60s actually- are not studying any of the western classics that our founders and those coming after learned from and studied. As we throw those out in favor of ‘global literature’, we lose the basis for our understanding of liberty, personal freedom (including the freedom to learn from failing). We also lose the basis for why and how out country and its republican government (given we are not a true direct democracy) was created. Ordinary people, by and large, can’t read it any longer. Even the highly educated seemingly can’t, having been conditioned by years in liberal universities or influenced by the chattering classes. I think my greatest fear is that we have lost the Republic due to sheer, outright ignorance and poor education.
Left/liberals only want things that they like to be Constitutional… which is not how it works. Also, there is no interstate commerce in insurance under Federal law purposely restriction it to the states… how can Obamacare compel us to buy insurance on the basis of interstate commerce that doesn’t even exist, too?
Anon, you are like Joe upthread. You just aint interpreting the constitution very well. Read it again, or ask Nancy Pelosi, or Obama, or Pete Stark, or the supreme court.
Nevermind, here, I will put it in a nutshell for you. The constitution says;
“The Federal Government can do any goddamn thing it wants and there is nothing you can do about it.”
And thus began one of two options.
a: Revolution
b: Civil War
Either way this will not be pretty.
The commerce clause was not a grant of power to the federal government. It was a denial of power to the states. States could regulate commerce but could not treat internal and external actors differently. The clause ensured that there would be free trade, a “Common Market”, within the United States.
Won’t defend the Defense of Marriage Act
Using the ICC for mandated Government takeover of healthcare
Mandates the Government as the only College Loan source
Won’t prosecute the Black Panthers
Won’t prosecute CARE in Dallas as requested by the FBI
Won’t seek Congressional approval for Libyan WAR
Tried to intervene in execution of a murderer in Texas last week to defend a killer rather than defend a 16 year old dead victim
Appoints a communist (Van Jones) to a Whitehouse post
Appoints a Treasury Secretary (and 8 others) who are behind in taxes
Appoints the CEO of GE to head Economic Advisory Panel-they pay 0 taxes
Feel free to add to the list of reasons not to trust this Dictator in Chief
Framers like Randolph, Hamilton, Madison, Wilson or even Chief Justice Marshall made clear the power to regulate commerce was the power to prescribe the rules that determined which articles of imports or tonnage were to receive restrictive or prohibitory duties for the purpose of promoting or protecting local manufactures. The power over the states was for remedial purposes to prevent states from taxing neighboring states trade with Congress also prevented from doing the same (congress wasn’t trusted) in regulating commerce among the states via section nine of article one. More here:
http://federalistblog.us/2011/06/no_power_over_interstate_commerce.html
This commerce clause has been stretched so far now over the years. Can we get back to the original meaning as pointed out by poster Biffo? When we are amending the constitution regarding budget limits, we should do something with this amendment as well.Just a thought.
I like the pro-Constitution comments here. Just remember though: ‘Obamacare’ is only the latest of decades-long gross violations of the Constitution, from SocSec to the EPA, from OSHA to the Dept of Labor. Try to find one line in the Constitution authorizing Congress to force the citizens of every state to pay into and suffer under a Federal retirement/disability/medical program (AKA SocSec/Medicare): it ain’t in there. Nor is any authority to regulate the output of smokestacks, the amount an employer pays his employees, or what is on food labels.
And please don’t bother talking about amendments that will somehow fix the situation. As has been noted above, the Constitution is written in plain language, to be plainly understood. If otherwise intelligent folks are in enough ignorance and denial about it in its current state, it doesn’t matter what is written to ‘clarify’ it; they’ll just be in denial about that, too. That’s why I don’t favor a Constitutional amendment ‘clarifying’ marriage, as if it really needed clarifying. I can just see it: a DOMA amendment has been passed; two men walk into a judge’s office and say they want to be married. Judge says, ‘Sorry, those &%@(! conservatives passed the DOMA, so marriage can only be between a man and a woman.’ One of the men then says, ‘Well, for the purposes of THIS marriage, I’m the woman!’ Judge says, ‘Good enough for me!’ and ‘marries’ them.
This does not end well.
Doc, I have an amendment you might like: A Representative can challenge a SCOTUS ruling on Constitutional grounds; then the Senate is required to hear the challenge; if the Senate agrees that the SCOTUS ruling is based on something other than a clear reading of the Constitution the Senate can void the ruling. The only way the the SCOTUS can overrule that finding is for all nine justices to re-pass that ruling. Along with the above, a SCOTUS justice can be impeached if he or she has a history of ruling outside of the Constitution or using other sources for their rulings.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the thought. But if we had citizens with the integrity to elect legislators with the integrity to pass that amendment, we wouldn’t need it; we would all ready have elected congressman and senators who would impeach a SCOTUS for a grossly unlawful decision. They wouldn’t need a new amendment.
G-d is omnipotent and indestructible. Can G-d create a stone so big that it would destroy him? If he can he’s not indestructible. If he can’t he’s not omnipotent. (ans. “He can but he doesn’t”) I hope this helps.
First they came to force me to buy a politically correct toilet.
Then they came to force me to buy the politically correct lightbulb.
Then they came to force me to buy medical insurance.
Then they came to force me to buy a Chevy Volt.
Then they came to force me to buy The New York Times…
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=577934&p=1
The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that only one in four high-school seniors scored at least “proficient” in knowledge of U.S. citizenship. Civics and history were American students’ worst subjects….
…. The ignorance about our country is staggering. According to one survey, only 28% of students could identify the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Only 26% of students knew that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Fewer than one-quarter of students knew that George Washington was the first president of the United States.
Stengel and Lapore’s answers to Will’s question demonstrate that I.Q. and education do not produce useful intellect. An ingredient is missing: Honesty. If the U.S. constitution (pursuant to any provision) empowers Congress to enact laws forcing us to buy a health insurance policy of their choosing, then Congress is empowered to enact laws forcing us to buy anything of their choosing, e.g. vegetables, weight loss programs, birth control, etc. This conclusion logically the first premise, and Stengel and Lapore’s avoidance of it demonstrates both their intellectual dishonesty and uselessness in the public debates over political and constitutional policy. Note that Stengel and Lapore also demonstrate the left’s Alinskyite reluctance to come clean on their ultimate goals, understanding that most Americans won’t cooperate with the left if they understand where the left ultimately wants to lead them.
In contrast, Dyson gave us an honest answer from the left: Thus empowered, Congress will pass whatever laws it deems good and proper. Period.
Dyson’s honesty opened the left’s kimono and gave us all a glimpse inside. Our liberty is forfeit to Congress if the U.S. Constitution no longer limits its power, and that’s what the left wants. Let the only limitations on Congress be political, but let them otherwise be restrained by nothing so tainted or antiquated as a higher law, the judicial or executive branches, or the fundamental principles of individual liberty and limited government. Every aspect of our lives will then become political, to debated and ultimately regulated according to the Public Will as expressed and realized by Congress. Note how this would entirely transform the American Revolution to the French Revolution, the former founded in classical liberalism and the latter in proto-socialism. Yes, Dyson sees ObamaCare as a second revolutionary bite at the apple for America, a second chance to get itself founded on proper socialist principles. And he loves it.
For those of us who abhor Dyson’s vision, we cannot doubt what’s at stake when the supremes take up the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Now may be the time to start considering whether the Union can survive a Congress of unlimited power.
Well, hell, I suppose if we’re really going to be logically consistent with a broad all encompassing commerce clause giving congress unlimited powers, then abortions should be or could be illegal under almost all conditions, because abortions preclude future consumers and producers in restraint of trade under the proposed new an improved commerce clause. Weight watchers? How about the requirement to have a brothel membership in Nevada? Got to keep those love handles slim and trim while in the saddle. And why just restrain the skin trade to Nevada when there are prostitutes in all fifty states overloaded with fat people? Maybe we could have commerce clause bill of attainders for family group punishments when a family member commits suicide? Granted, the undertaker gets some business, but think of all the trade foregone because of early deaths by selfish individuals who want to check out for the ultimate inactivity for whatever reason? Remember, the left have their ideas and the right have their ideas, and power in congress is relative and always changing. Elections, like ideas, have consequences.