Judging that the mandate in President Obama’s Health Carebill is an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause, U.S. DistrictJudge Henry Hudson struck a blow for a commonsense approachto constitutional interpretation. Hefurther decided that words actually have meanings and are not merely placeholders for future generations to use as they deconstruct the document meant tolimit government into a document used to expand it.
Judge Hudson stated“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business ofinsurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage --it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.” In his well reasoned and well stated 42 pageopinion, Hudsonalso said many things which have needed saying for quite some time. After years of activist judges stretching our torturedConstitution from limiting the government to limiting the citizen it’srefreshing to see an American jurist proclaiming that the corruption of ourfundamental charter is leading us towards the creation of an unlimited centralgovernment usurping the powers expressly reserved to the States and the people.
Several of his statements are so well worded and soimportant they deserve repeating by every patriot who has a voice:
Accordingto Judge Hudson:
“Although the Necessary and ProperClause vests Congress with broad authority to exercise means, which are notthemselves an enumerated power, to implement legislation, it is not withoutlimitation.”
“Every application of Commerce Clause power found to beconstitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action,transaction, or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity.”
“Although purportedly grounded inthe General Welfare Clause, the notion that the generation of revenue was asignificant legislative objective is a transparent afterthought.”
“The legislative purposeunderlying this provision was purely regulation of what Congress misperceivedto be economic activity.”
“[i]f a person's decision not topurchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute thetype of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, thenlogically an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and ProperClause is equally offensive to the Constitution.”
“The same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritionaldecisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject tocongressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported byCommerce Clause jurisprudence....”
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals hasextended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enterthe stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. Indoing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds theCommerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I....”
“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to thelimits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would inviteunbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, the dispute is notsimply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme ofuniversal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual’s right to chooseto participate.”
“[T]he Minimum Essential CoverageProvision appears to forge new ground and extends the Commerce Clause powersbeyond its current high water mark."
These are the type of wordspatriots have been waiting to hear from the bench! These are the bold and direct statementsneeded to reaffirm the truth that the Constitution is meant to limit governmentnot to enable it to run roughshod over the freedom and liberty of the people. If the original document did not make thisclear the TenthAmendment states this fundamental truth clearlyfor all to hear, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, orto the people.”
However gratifying it is to hearan American Judge stand up for American values we must keep this victory inperspective. Two other Federal Courts havepreviously upheld the government mandate. And one thing can be confidently predicted, all of these rulings will beappealed.
There is no effective way to bringpressure on a federal judge. They are insulatedby lifetime appointments. Therefore, We the People cannot influence any ofthem and our opinion means nothing. Althoughsomedesire for the procedure to be shortened, havingthe matter immediately brought before the Supreme Court, even that wouldn’tbring a definitive answer until well into the next election cycle. And then the decision as to the continuedfreedom of American citizens to refrain from economic activity and the freedomof American citizens to make personal choices for themselves will be left up tonine individuals.
As the Anti-Federalists warned so many years ago in Brutus's 15th essay; “Thesupreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power inthe government, and subject to no control.” The essay continued to warn, “Thereis no power above them that can correct their errors or control theirdecisions.” And, “The power of thiscourt is in many cases superior to that of the legislature.” Ultimately observing, “When great andextraordinary powers are vested in any man, or body of men, which in theirexercise, may operate to the oppression of the people, it is of high importancethat powerful checks should be formed to prevent the abuse of it.” The ratification conventions of the Stateschose to ignore these powerful arguments; consequently, never has the freedomof so many rested upon the judgment of so few. And, probably on a vote of 5 to 4 rests thefate of We the People and a limitedgovernment.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for SouthsideVirginia Community College. He is theauthor of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.comView the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8© 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr.Robert Owens on Facebook.
Replies