by Derek Sheriff
Joshua Lyons wrote about the health care debate last November:
“It is imperative that we take our eyes off the specifics of the proposed healthcare legislation (i.e. death panels, etc.) and focus on the authority granted [or not granted] to our federal representatives by the people.”
and
“Unless we unify around properly granted authority..we’ll continue a losing back-and-forth game of arguing the issues where the ball keeps getting pushed down the field a few more inches toward the Nanny State end zone.”
He was right when he wrote those words last year and the fact of the matter is that the situation remains unchanged today.
Obama may have embraced a few Republican ideas as part of his new plan, but that doesn’t amend the Constitution. The fact that the president wrote that he would continue to draw on the best ideas from both parties, and that he is open to these proposals doesn’t mean that he is open to the proposal that Congress has no authority under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to event enact most of what will be contained in his final plan. His reaction to such a proposal would probably be similar to Nancy Pelosi’s reaction when she was confronted with it. With undisguised hubris, she asked the reporter, “Are you serious?”.
When one looks at the larger picture, the details of Obama’s new “health care package”, or whether or not it is passed with bipartisan support, matters little. What is far more important, now and in the future, is that people question the constitutionality of every bill proposed by Congress.
Sadly, many opponents of big government can’t see the forest (the larger constitutional objection), for all the trees, (death panels, debt, job losses, higher taxes etc.) How many Republicans who participated in Obama’s recent bi-partisan dog and pony show actually objected to the new plan on constitutional grounds? This needs to change right now. The details of the so called “package” should be ignored or at least take a back seat. We should instead focus on the question of constitutional authority and limit the scope of this debate immediately. Much more is at stake here than health care freedom, after all.
Our opponents would like nothing more than to distract us from the issue of constitutionality. But by refusing to be redirected, we can retain the high ground and dictate the terms of battle, as it were. This will also help to educate and prepare those who believe in limited government to resist not only this act of federal usurpation, but all such acts.
It’s essential, both in the long run and the short run, that we educate people about just what the U.S. Constitution does and does not authorize our federal government to do. It’s not very difficult to show anyone, who still has any regard at all for the Constitution, just how flimsy the arguments made by federal consolidationists like Nancy Pelosi are.
Arguments that consolidationists employ usually involve an extreme metamorphosis of the “General Welfare Clause”, or it is claimed that since Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and,
“..every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”
Go back and read that statement again. Nancy Pelosi claims UNLIMITED power to regulate your health care! Someone should point out to her that a government without limits is a tyranny! Affirmation number six of the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10-4 Pledge points out what constitutional scholars like Rob Natelson and Kevin Gutzman have been saying for years:
“The “Interstate Commerce Clause†in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, does not permit Congress to regulate matters that merely affect commerce among the States. It only permits Congress to regulate trade among the States.”
Unless we emphasize and stick to the point that Congress has only those specific, limited powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, we are really just debating over who should be in control of what amounts to an unlimited, unrestrained, unaccountable central government. It doesn’t matter which party controls such a leviathan because it will eventually end up controlling and regulating every aspect of our lives.
But doesn’t Congress have implied powers that can be inferred from the “nessecarry and proper clause”? Yes, of course, but this clause only empowers Congress to use the minimum amount of power nessecarry to carry out those powers that are already enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. Affirmation number five of the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10-4 Pledge explains it very succictly:
“In order for a federally-exercised power to be “necessary and proper†it must be
a) something that, without which, would make the enumerated power impossible to exercise, and
b) a lesser power than that which has been enumerated”
Novel interpretations of the “commerce clause” favored by federal consolidationists can never be reconciled with its original meaning as understood by the Constitution’s framers and ratifiers. Any layperson who has spent just a little time studying the ratification debates between the federalists and anti-federalists, can see right through the arguments of today’s would be nationalists and will realize just how dubious their claims of unlimited power to regulate really are.
It’s only been through the dumbing down of several generations and the repeated use of partisan “divide and conquer” tactics that the consolidationists in Washington, D.C. have even been able to perpetrate their “commerce clause” fraud for so long.
Unfortunately for them, however, the people of the several states and a majority of their legislators in many states, are now more alert and better informed about the 10th Amendment than they have ever been in recent memory.
A good place to start learning exactly why the proposed national health care “reform” is unconstitutional, would be this article written by a leading constitutional scholar, Rob Natelson, Professor of Law at The University of Montana: Pelosi’s Misleading Statement on the Constitutionality of Government Health Care
Don’t be distracted or become bogged down in this debate. Emphasize the Constitution above all else and QUESTION AUTHORITY!
CLICK HERE – To get email updates!
CLICK HERE – To Subscribe!
CLICK HERE – To volunteer!
Excellent article! Thanks!
Other than Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, I don't hear any one in power challenging all this Congressional crap on constitutional bases.
However, since RP ran for President and correctly predicted the financial mess and MB has become more vocal, they are no longer treated as complete crackpots by everyone as they used to be. So, we're making some progress!
You are not listening, then.
With all due respect, patriotsoul, Guest might have a point, at least partially. Please consider the following.
While I commend Tea Party patriots, for example, for protesting in DC to try to stop the HoR from passing Obamacare, please consider this. Why are ordinary citizens trying to do all the dirty work in trying to put corrupt Congress back on its constitutional leash when that's partly what we elect state lawmakers to do? After all, it's the states who have the power to regulate and lay taxes for healthcare, for example, not the Oval Office and Congress.
A Democratic Idaho state lawmaker, for example, seems oblivious to the idea that the federal healthcare dollars that Governor Otter is trying to keep out of Idaho with the Idaho Health Freedom Act should never have left her state in the first place.
AP: Idaho first to sign law against health care reform
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/u…
What this Democratic Idaho lawmaker evidently doesn't understand is that the USSC has already decided that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into the medical practice.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html
And not only is federal public healthcare constitutionally unauthorized, but Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored by both Democratic and Republican federal and state lawmakers, that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So not only is Obamacare, for example, constitutionally unauthorized, but as Chief Justice Marshall's words clearly indicate, Congress doesn't have the power to lay taxes for Obamacare in the first place.
Getting back to Constitution-impaired state lawmakers, not only does the Idaho Democratic lawmaker evidently not understand that she's not doing her job to protect Idaho citizens from illegal federal taxes, such as those being used to fund Obamacare which she is ironically scared of losing for her state, but there’s probably state sovereignty-impaired lawmakers in all states who likewise don’t understand that they are failing to stop corrupt Congress from stealing from the people.
The bottom line is that instead of targeting only Congress to help restore state sovereignty in November, citizens need to light a fire under constitutionally-impaired state lawmakers to get off their cans and start using their greater constitutional powers to serve the people, booting corrupt federal lawmakers and their illegal taxes out of Congress.
On a positive note, Tenth Amendment Center has indicated that several states are already working on legislation to prohibit constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes from leaving their states. (Did you hear that bankrupt California?)
ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/18/re…
That's a great point Derek- no need to examine the health care mandate any further than "Is it ENUMERATED?"
The right to regulate health care may not be a delegated power, but interpretations of our flexible Constitution have given the government the right to using the General Welfare clause.
Regarding the General Welfare clause, while the decision that the Supreme Court handed down in United States v Butler and Helvering v Davis may not align perfectly with the personal policies of the members of this website, it has none the less been decided, and overturning these decisions is highly impractical with the political leanings of the current government. Congress may provide for the General Welfare and the definition is at their discretion.
So, are ALL supreme court decisions right? that seems to be what you are basing your position on.
No, but the article and other posters seem to omit these Supreme Court decisions that help shape and define our constitution from their comments. I didn't offer my opinion on whether the decisions were right or not, I was just stating some facts.
Oh, ok. I was wondering which of the following were true of your position:
a) you considered all supreme court decisions to be right
or
b) you felt that people should not object or resist unjust and incorrect decisions just because they are long-standing.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I strongly agree with the sentiment in your comments here. There seem to be many people posting here to the effect that we're stuck with the current mess because the Supremes have gone along with it at one time or another.
It's as if they've never heard of overruling precedent and it's getting old.
Great post, says it all in a nutshell, I only hope that this message gets through to the various groups and movements out there that oppose the tyrany of Washington, and that we all can focus our efforts to that end, the renouncing and prohibiting of Congress passing laws that or inherently unconstitutional.
Out standing underlining point by Joshua Lyons. This is the standard upon which I am most passionate.
I seek not to undercut the leftist dreams of socialization, merely to see to it that they do not do it in a way that robs the people of their right to self-government.
The leftists care about the people as if they were somehow an aggregate whole rather then a group composed of individuals. To that end they tend to ignore the rights and the free-will of the individuals that compose any civilization.
We freedom loving folks cannot tolerate or allow this usurpation. Conservatives find it an abomination to rob form one to "give" to anther, for the right of gift is not one the right of a 3rd party but of the party who earned that which they must choose to give up.
Where both American Conservatives, and libertarians agree is that the experience of history has again and again demonstrated that individuals value their individual freedom in practice above all else. That the tyranny of the collectivized government, acting as that "3rd party" in the forceful redistribution of wealth, is not one that serves the happiness and protects the rights of the individuals that compose any free civilization.
But rather one that has always led only to the misery and tyranny of all but the select few power-welders at the top of such a civilization.
In the last few days I've seen both the good guys and the bad guys taking the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) out of context with respect to two instances of state legislation to essentially nullify Obamacare; resistance is futile you know. The good guys are inadvertently perverting the Supremacy Clause likely for the following likely reason. Like most citizens, they are probably not up to speed with the idea that only those federal laws based on the very limited powers delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8 are supreme, and are thus intimidated by pro-big federal government perversions of the Sovereignty Clause. Here's links to articles.
AP: Idaho first to sign law against health care reform
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/u…
Reichley Column: Mandatory insurance ban won't save us
http://www2.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/colum…
As I've ranted elsewhere, the people, including sadly some state lawmakers, don't seem to understand the following about the Constitution, particularly state sovereignty. When the USSC unthinkingly decides a case concerning the Supremacy Clause in the favor of the federal government with respect to federal laws based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers, as the USSC has done before, then state-sovereignty savvy state lawmakers can do the following. They can "overturn" the USSC's pro-federal government perversion's of the Constitution by exercising their Article V powers to amend the Constitution to make the Constitution "more readable" for "vision-impaired" justices. The 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of such overturning.
In other words, the following informal rules need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the Constitution where cases concerning state powers versus federal powers are concerned, rules which respect Article V and 10th Amendment protected state sovereignty.
Rule #1: The states are always right
Rule #2: When the states are wrong, see rule #1
So pre-Civil War, the States were right to enslave a race? I don't think so.
Now that you’ve switched the subject from constitutionally unauthorized Obamacare to pre-Civil War issues, I don’t think so either.
I haven't switched the topic, I was just pointing out a flaw in your rules. Even Thomas Jefferson found trouble with the practicality of his political philosophy.
Again, when the USSC gets a case which tests Congress’s constitutional limits and decides against the states, it remains that the states, not the federal government, have the power to change the “rules of the game” in their favor. The 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of this to an extent.
So it’s just a sign of Constitution ignorance, IMO, to think that USSC decisions are final.
The reason that the states haven’t exercised their Article V power to overturn unpopular USSC case decisions in the last decade, such as with Roe v. Wade, is this. State lawmakers are evidently as constitutionally impaired as the people who vote them into office are, IMO.
As a side note concerning Roe v. Wade, while the states could have “overruled” the USSC by making an amendment prohibiting abortion, Roe v. Wade was based on perversions of Constitution by corrupt justices, IMO, an anti-abortion amendment arguably unnecessary.
God, that slavery issue gets old in this context. No one is talking about the morality of slavery. Wise up!
Try sticking to the topic of whether the Supremacy Clause applies when the act in question is unconstitutional.
So I understand that you think years of settled law is incorrect based on the original meaning of the Constitution, but why do you oppose federal control of health care as a matter of policy? You guys are pro States' Rights, which means you must be okay with a state imposing the same regulations that are now being considered by the feds. Do you guys have a principled stand against government meddling in our lives generally? Or do you simply oppose the feds from imposing regulations that would be okay if done by a state?
Sorry I didn’t reply earlier Jacob Howard. I just now noticed that you were probably replying to my post.
First, I never said that all unsettled law is incorrect, if that is what you meant.
Regarding federal healthcare, the states have never authorized the federal government via the Constitution to regulate public healthcare. If Reid and Pelosi’s Congress had complied with Article V and been granted the power by the states to regulate healthcare then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Regarding the states, each state has the power to say yes or no to state run healthcare.
Finally, the problem with Congress usurping state power and stealing state tax dollars associated with those powers is this. You end up with too much money in in one place, the US Treasury in this case. After all, all that a crook has to do to steal from the Treasury is to get elected as a federal lawmaker. Once a federal lawmaker the crook robs the Treasury in the form of “nonexistent” legislative earmarks which puts taxpayer dollars in the pocket of the special interest groups who put the crook into office in the first place.
On the other hand, if citizen’s hard earned dollars stated in the states then there’d be much less money in the US Treasury that the crooks could get their hands on.
NO ONE – not the feds, states or YOU – has the right to take what we rightfully earn and give it to anyone else!!! Period. Otherwise, I would like to have Air Force One at my disposal, and how about a bigger home? I have seen a few I would like to have but do not have a good enough job to afford, since I am too lazy to get a doctorate so I can make more money. So I would like to just take that 12 acre ranch down the road and have i for my own. Sound fair??