Posted under Health Care & Judicial Activism
And now for the shocker of the century:
The majority writes: “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.” Key passage:
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the judges who voted to uphold the act, clerked for Scalia, and was nominated by George W. Bush.
Actually, this is two shockers in one! Not only has the Commerce Clause been used ONCE AGAIN to grant the central government powers never contemplated by the people, a Bush-appointed judge sided with Obama.
Still think electing Republicans makes any difference?
I can’t resist quoting my blog post from last September, on a court ruling that said the Commerce Clause gave DC final say on gun laws:
I mean really — you ask the Feds how much power they have over you and the answer is “lots!” That’s a surprise? And they base their authority on the commerce clause, which lovers of big government have turned into Silly Putty. Yawwwn. …
Guess what will happen when Obamacare faces the exact same challenge? Think the commerce clause can be stretched to cover that, too?
Anyone out there care to make a little bet?
Yep. That’s some Clause, that Commerce Clause.
Matt Weber on 29 Jun 2011 at 9:29 pm #
It really means two things. One is that the government’s power is unlimited. Two is that having a written constitution, contrary to American belief, really doesn’t have any effect at all.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 Jun 2011 at 1:15 am #
Matt Weber,
Sad but true. As Clyde Wilson has pointed out, the Constitution is not a self-enforcing document.
Matt Weber on 30 Jun 2011 at 5:23 pm #
Wow I almost missed this:
“In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.”
In other words, had the whole program had a more modest goal in mind than restructuring the entire healthcare system, it may have been unconstitutional. That’s amazing. Can we have ol tyrannical King George back?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 01 Jul 2011 at 1:09 pm #
Matt Weber,
Ha! That’s right — the more invasive a program, the more Constitutional it is!
I’m sure that’s exactly what Madison had in mind.
And as for Mad George — well, he’s looking better every day.