Perseus
Member
I'm sure you all know about the federal judge who ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. The question becomes, is this the correct ruling?
As you probably know, Obama claims that his plan is apart of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
So... the federal government can regulate commerce if with other countries, Indian Tribes, and between the states. The first fallacy arrives in this very statement. The Commerce Clause can only regulate interstate commerce while ObamaCare is intrastate commerce.
Now, we must look at the definition of "commerce":
Quote
This seems to fit what our Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution. With foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian Tribes... makes sense.
It does not, however, make sense that ObamaCare would be part of this clause. ObamaCare forces individuals to purchase health insurance. The very definition of "commerce" is large trading, not individual trading. If our Founding Fathers wanted the federal government to regulate trade among individuals, they would have simply said "to regulate trade." However, if we are to say that "commerce" was used as a synonym for "trade," it is still evident that the bill is unconstitutional, since it can only be used to regulate trade -- not to force trade. The Supreme Court has ruled many times in the matter that the commerce clause can be used to regulate different types of "activity" while not purchasing health insurance is, by definition, inactivity. They've never ruled that this clause permits the federal government to regulate inactivity.
Knowing this, it is clear that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
As you probably know, Obama claims that his plan is apart of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
So... the federal government can regulate commerce if with other countries, Indian Tribes, and between the states. The first fallacy arrives in this very statement. The Commerce Clause can only regulate interstate commerce while ObamaCare is intrastate commerce.
Now, we must look at the definition of "commerce":
Quote
an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce)
http://dictionary.re...browse/commerceThis seems to fit what our Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution. With foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian Tribes... makes sense.
It does not, however, make sense that ObamaCare would be part of this clause. ObamaCare forces individuals to purchase health insurance. The very definition of "commerce" is large trading, not individual trading. If our Founding Fathers wanted the federal government to regulate trade among individuals, they would have simply said "to regulate trade." However, if we are to say that "commerce" was used as a synonym for "trade," it is still evident that the bill is unconstitutional, since it can only be used to regulate trade -- not to force trade. The Supreme Court has ruled many times in the matter that the commerce clause can be used to regulate different types of "activity" while not purchasing health insurance is, by definition, inactivity. They've never ruled that this clause permits the federal government to regulate inactivity.
Knowing this, it is clear that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.