A Basement Full of Water: Another View of the Health Care Ruling

by Michael Maharrey

Imagine you wake up one morning and walk down into your basement to find that while you slept a pipe burst, spewing hundreds of gallons of water into your cellar. To your horror, swirling water already reaches above your knees.

You immediately go to your main water shut-off, only to find it completely jammed. So, you call a plumber, who informs you that he will come as quickly as possible.

Of course “quickly” in plumber parlance means a couple of hours. When he arrives, water flows above your waist. But whatever this particular plumber may lack in speed, he makes up for in efficiency, and within moments he shuts off the flow of water and proceeds to fix the broken pipe.

A couple of hours and several hundred dollars later, the plumber leaves you with a brand new, leak free pipe. In all likelihood, you would feel a great sense of relief and perhaps even a touch of euphoria knowing that the pipe was fixed and  water was no longer free-flowing inside your home.

Just one problem – you still have several feet of water standing in your basement.

Cleanup wasn’t in this particular plumber’s job description.

The recent ruling striking down the insurance mandates in the federal health care legislation leaves me feeling a bit like the man in this little tale. I’m excited that a judge got it right – at least within the narrow scope he addressed. But when it’s all said and done, I still have a bunch of water in my basement.

First the good news.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson  understood the Constitution well enough to reason that the founders never intended a power to force citizens to engage in commerce.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I….

A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, the dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.

Hudson stopped the leak.

And while I see this as a positive, I still can’t bring myself to join in with those applauding the ruling as a great victory for the Constitution.

My basement remains full of water.

Although Hudson struck down the insurance mandates, reading through the entire decision reveals that he has no issue with the notion that the federal government has the power to regulate health care. He accepts the expanded view of the commerce clause formulated by the courts since the 1930′s. He takes no issue with Wickard v. Filburn, a ruling that held the federal government could fine a farmer for growing wheat for his own use, even if it never left the farm, reasoning that his consumption of his own wheat still had a substantial effect on the interstate market. And he consistently uses the terms “commerce” and “economic activity” interchangeably.

The Original Constitution

Get the New Book Today!

But the founders did not understand commerce to mean all economic activity. Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson did extensive research on the word “commerce” and found that its meaning, as understood in the 18th century, centered around trade. Not manufacturing. Not agriculture and certainly not health care.

The framers granted Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce simply to prevent states from imposing tariffs on one another, thus inhibiting trade. It was never intended as a positive power allowing Congress to implement regulations on things like health care. James Madison made this clear.

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

When applying a proper understanding to the framers’ intent in granting Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the Tenth Amendment Center holds that regulation of health care lies outside of the enumerated powers granted to Congress and therefore the entire health care bill is unconstitutional – not just the insurance mandates.

But the courts have stretched the commerce clause so far beyond its original intent and meaning as to render it almost all encompassing.

Hudson’s ruling places a roadblock in the progressive drive to grant Congress unlimited power to regulate virtually everything. And it certainly creates problems for President Obama and those seeking to expand the role of government in health care.

But it does nothing to restrain Congress from exercising power never intended by the founders. It does nothing to roll back more than 50 years of unconstitutional judicial interpretation. (For more on the judiciary as the final arbiter, click here.) And it does nothing to stop Congress from meddling in health care.

The Tenth Amendment Center applauds efforts to curb federal power from every front. But it is our view that the states will ultimately have to take matters into their own hands and nullify unconstitutional acts such as the federal health care legislation. We simply cannot put our faith in the federal judiciary to limit federal power.

As Thomas Jefferson said, nullification is the rightful remedy.

CLICK HERE to read about legislation in Texas that will do just that.

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, ,

5 comments
Alan
Alan

How do we know that Judge Hudson "has no issue with the notion that the federal government has the power to regulate health care?" Or how do we know that, "he accepts the expanded view of the commerce clause formulated by the courts since the 1930′s," or even that "he takes no issue with Wickard v. Filburn?" He's a district court judge. He is bound by what the Supreme Court says. Even if he thinks that the Supreme Court could not be more wrong about the Commerce Clause, he can't do anything about it. All he can do is apply the precedent that SCOTUS has established to cases. Be happy that he made the decision that he did.

KY10th
KY10th

Alan,

I prefaced my comments on Hudson's views on the commerce clause by writing "reading through the entire decision..." making it clear that my analysis of his views were based on what he wrote in that decision. Common sense should inform you that I'm not trying to crawl around inside the man's mind or assume that I know his personal views. My analysis is based on the decision and in that decision, he accepts an expanded view of the commerce clause and takes no issue with Wickard. That's the only thing relevant to the discussion, because as you rightly point out, he's bound by precedent.

In fact, you have swerved into an important truth - that we cannot rely solely on the federal judiciary to protect the people from unconstitutional acts. Am I "glad" that he ruled as he did? Sure, and I think I made that point clear. But does it really do anything to stop the federal government from unconstitutionally regulating health care in every other way except requiring the insurance mandate? No, it does not. You basically just made my point for me and explained why I shouldn't be all that happy...because this ruling does not and can not change the underlying rational for what I view as an unconstitutional federal overreach.

So forgive me if I don't jump up and down and do a little dance. The whole point of the article is to point out the futility of pinning our hopes on a branch of the federal government to check the expansion of the federal government.

Alan
Alan

He didn't accept an expanded view of the commerce clause for any other reason than that he had to. He's not going to just throw in a statement about his personal opinions on commerce clause jurisprudence just because he feels like it. He is bound by precedent and he has no other choice but to accept it.

robertaviles
robertaviles

You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

KY10th
KY10th

The issue isn't about health insurance or even health care. It's about whether the federal government has the power under the Constitution to regulate health care. It doesn't. This is a matter properly left to the states.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, Kenny Stewart, Eye-On-Earth, Truth Seeker, Capitol Circle Right and others. Capitol Circle Right said: A Basement Full of Water: Another View of the Health Care Ruling http://bit.ly/i3lg5Z [...]

  2. [...] A Basement Full of Water: Another View of the Health Care RulingTenth Amendment CenterSo, you call a plumber, who informs you that he will come as quickly as possible. Of course “quickly” in plumber parlance means a couple of hours. …VA Judge Finds Limits to Government PowerBig Journalismall 3,383 news articles » [...]

  3. [...] article by Michael Maharrey on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. … U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson  understood the Constitution well enough to reason that [...]