The following is how a unanimous Supreme Court should have ruled with regard to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
The issue before this court is whether the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010 is constitutional. Specifically, does the Congress have the power to legislate medical care or medical care insurance coverage? This Court finds that it does not.
Congress’ enumerated powers are found in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. No less than James Madison confirmed in Federalist Paper #45 that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.” And in fact, nothing in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution can be construed to mean that Congress has any power to legislate medicine, medical care, or the insurance coverage thereof.
Now, some will claim that Congress retains powers not enumerated in the Constitution. In the first place, why then did the authors enumerate any powers at all in the Constitution? Secondly, how can the meaning of the Tenth Amendment be ignored? There is no ambiguity as to the meaning of, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” James Madison in Federalist Paper 45 again, “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Thus, the power to legislate health care, like marriage, education, driving licenses, and other “objects of the ordinary course of affairs” resides with state governments not the federal government in our system of governance.
But, even that explanation of enumerated powers does not satisfy those that are voracious in their hunger to do good and enact measures at the federal level of government that will take care of us from cradle to grave. It is not the job of this Court or really any court to determine the social worthiness of legislation. The job of the courts is to determine the law, decide constitutionality, and dispense justice by protecting rights.
So, it is wrong for political forces to use vague terms from the Constitution to further their ends. The most often used term is the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause. The 16 words in the clause have historically been used to allow Congress to regulate everything from speed limits on the nation’s roads to handicap ramps on sidewalks to regulating lawn mower emissions. But the original intent of, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” was not to give Congress the power to regulate all things commercial. It was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states. Under the Articles of Confederation the States had a habit of enacting impediments to free trade between them. Alexander Hamilton alluded to this in Federalist Paper #22 and indicated his belief that a “national control” (Interstate Commerce Clause) to restrain this impulse was necessary. Thus, in the case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), this Court used the Interstate Commerce Clause to strike down an anti-free trade act of the legislature of New York.
Therefore, it is found by this Court that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is hereby deemed unconstitutional. No justification whatsoever can be found for Congress to have assumed the power under the U.S. Constitution to pass this act. It is hereby declared null and void.
Of course, it is not surprising that the Court did not follow the Constitution in its ruling. A long time ago, we lost all semblance of the constitutional republic the Founding Fathers gave us. Now we are stuck with a make-it-up as you go, lawless regime. Consequently, we are stuck with a massive federal boondoggle which will ultimately raise the costs of health care, bankrupt the county further, and move us closer to National Socialism where government funnels through legislation and regulation consumers to favored corporations. In this case the insurance industry.
Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in North Carolina


Salon.com
Comments
I've heard these The Constitution violates The Constitution arguments many times. Today Congress violates the Constitution and, starting with the first Congress, always has. The men who wrote it also violated it. Madison violated it, Jefferson too. For sure Adams did and, by your standards, so did Washington.
Give me some time, perhaps, and I might decide you're right and they're wrong, but you're bucking a pretty long trend...
I am always tempted to add after such statements that this is why RomneyCare of perfectly allowable for Massachusetts and why ObamaCare is disallowed for America. If the citizens of Massachusetts want to tax themselves from cradle to grave in order to receive care at the hands of the State over the same interval, then they should be allowed to do so.
On the other hand, if Arizona chooses not to tax its citizens in the interest of personal responsibility in exchange for liberty, then it should be allowed to do so. Those dissatisfied with Massachusetts can move to Arizona and vice versa. America thereby becomes this bubbling laboratory of diverse State experiments in which we all see who thrives and how.
========
“A long time ago, we lost all semblance of the constitutional republic the Founding Fathers gave us. Now we are stuck with a make-it-up as you go, lawless regime.”
Nothing could better illustrate this truth than a court who applies one test under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act to determine its jurisdiction to hear arguments regarding the individual mandate and another test under the General Welfare and Uniformity Clauses to determine the constitutionality of the individual mandate. In the first case, the individual mandate, or its penalty, was deemed not a tax. In the second case, they were deemed a tax.
It’s enough to bring a deeper understanding to Churchill’s admonition:
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
========
Excellent, Rated. . .
The power to apply healthcare laws is in tax and spend-general welfare, the 1st enumerated power.
Congress does have general, non-specific powers, like the tax-spend clause, but I don't know of anyone who says it has powers outside of the Constitution. You're making that up based on your flawed perceptions.
Your definition of "regulate" is also flawed. It means to set rules, not specifically to keep regular. It's a Con Clause, not a laxative.
You should study the Constitution for what it is, not relying on revisionist hacks to tell you what you want to hear. If you did that, you could write something that aligns with reality.
Congress' power to tax is constitutional, so even a tax under another name has to be considered a tax. The AIA is a law from Congress, so if they don't want the AIA to apply, the labeling shows they didn't intend it to apply. There was no jurisdictional decision made.
There's sound reasoning in Roberts' AIA ruling, but it was motivated by neither side wanting the AIA to be applied. They both wanted a decision on the ACA, the states because they have to prepare for the 2014 implementation of the whole ACA.
The Court could have disregarded that and applied the AIA, but given the extraordinary nature of the ACA, a common sense ruling was applied.
Y'all keep harping on Madison and the Federalist Papers. While they are significant, the Constitution wasn't ratified based on the Federalist Papers. Madison was soft-selling the powers of the Federal gov to encourage ratification, but what is written in the contract is the issue. The Federalist Papers weren't as influential as you've been told. As to the ratification of the Constitution, a good case can be made that they weren't influential at all. I know why, but you should look into it to see why I say that. It wouldn't hurt for you guys to do some actual research so you don't have to rely on ideologues pushing revisionism and negation.
I'm sure Obama knows what I do. It's so obvious that anyone who has spent a minimal amount of time studying would know it. I guess that's why you don't know it. The difference is I don't post on things I know little to nothing about, and if I did make the glaring errors you did here, I'd admit I was wrong and probably try to find somewhere to hide.
It's called integrity.
I'd rather be labeled pompous than be the one who can't back up what he says with facts. Your responses don't have much impact if you can't rebut what I said. The neener-neeners aren't convincing. I haven't been punched so hard since my sister's baby grabbed my nose.
However, I'd be happy to rebut whoever you faithfully parrot, unexamined, if you'll just paste up more of what they're telling you.
Uncle Chri tries to hang this dog onto healthcare, but that dog won't hunt. He deliberately ignores the consequences of such folly. For example, what are medical practitioners in Massachusetts supposed to do with a "freedom-loving" uninsured Arizonian severly injured while visiting Massachusetts -- let him die?
Judging by the reaction of the mob of mouth-breathers at the Republican debates when just such a hypothetical was posed, the answer is "yes".
In any case, the argument over states rights should have died when the Founders rightfully concluded the Articles of Confederation were inoperable; and after much debate, instituted a much stronger form of central government.
In time, those who lost the debate chose to fight -- and lost -- badly. But instead of admitting their mistakes and learning from them, southerners chose a form of cowardly guerrilla warfare -- legal warfare that corrupted their political and legal system and their society.
In short, they continued to fight for their ignoble Lost Cause. And what was that cause? White supremacy, impure and simple-minded.
Having never accepted the principle that all men are created equal, the citizens of states like South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas decided black kids didn't deserve a good education and dared to cover their naked racism with the fig leaf of "separate but equal. After nearly a century of ignoring that lie, the Supreme Court was forced to declare what was blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes, a conscience and a soul.
The plain truth is that if those states had done the right thing, the Court and the federal government wouldn't have had to step in. But they didn't, and so we ended up with Federal aid to education to try and ameliorate the deplorable ignorance -- on the whole -- of the people in those states.
That begs the question why citizens in those states prefer to remain no so blithely ignorant, but let us save that discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that is one reason the citizens of those states are so often cursed with two-bit petty dictators like Jim Dement and Jeff Secessions. As long as southerners place so little value on education, the South will always be the racist, redolent, red-headed step-child of this country.
But to return to the subject at hand ...
Ignorance isn't the exclusive province of the South -- not by a longshot -- not with Fux News and Limpbone and other rightwing purveyors of stupefying corporate propaganda. As a result, too many Americans fail to see what ought to be obvious to anyone with eyes and half a brain:
The rest of the industrialized western world long ago saw the need for some sort of single-payer system. As a result, every one of those countries has a healthcare system more efficient and effective than ours.
It's called integrity." -paul_j_orourke
Except you do in fact do this. And when a 25 year old tears apart your arguments and leaves you sniveling like a child who just lost their favorite toy, you block any further contact after a reaching and incredibly weak rebuttal. The proverbial " nanny nanny boo boo I can't hear you" ... Good job, good job.