They are missing the main point of it all.
If someone broke into your home, would you stand there arguing with him as to what is okay for him to take and what is not? Of course you wouldn’t. And yet that is what is happening with the health care law. People are arguing about what is in the law instead of the fact that the law is there to begin with and shouldn’t be.
There is no power given to Congress that allows them to take over the privately-owned health insurance industry and turn it into a government-run health care system. The health care law is basically saying that there is no longer any such thing as health insurance. ObamaCare is a health “care” act, not a health “insurance” act. Hence the reason that no one can be turned down. It is not insurance. Insurance insures us in case something happens, not after it happens. We don’t get house insurance after our kitchen burns down.
It is now health care, a government-run entity, in which everyone has to put into the pot. And it is beyond socialism. It is out-and-out communism because of the government’s takeover of an industry, the dissolving of it, and the forcing of those who were in that industry to now work for a government-run entity. It is like this: You own a clothing store. The government says that you can no longer run it as a store; you now must run it as a place where people can come and just get whatever it is that they need to wear within the government’s standards; and everyone who gets their clothing from you must pay a yearly amount to you that does not go over a government-set amount of cost to them. You no longer own a store. You now work for the government in a government-run clothing distribution place. And you are no longer allowed to own and operate a true store again. You are not allowed to make a profit above what the government allows you to get paid yearly from each person who comes into the government-run clothing distribution place. The government’s claim is that it has a right to regulate what you do for the good of commerce (trade) in this country.
So how can the federal government do this? Legally, it cannot. It can only do it illegally. And this is how it is doing it, illegally. Congress is claiming that it has the power to regulate commerce under the commerce clause when in fact it does not have a flat out-and-out power to regulate commerce under the clause. It has a right “To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” Its power is only to regulate the actual trade (the actual commerce) “among” (as in “between”) these entities, not within. If the interpretation was really what Congress is claiming, then that would mean that Congress can take over and run every American business, Indian business, and even every business in any other nation, too. That which is true for one part of the clause has to be true for the rest of it. But the fact is, the interpretation is not right. It is flat-out wrong. So where did this come from?
Okay, follow me here: In 1938, a law (The Agricultural Adjustment Act) was passed by Congress. The act actually put limits on how much wheat American farmers could grow on their land. Congress wanted to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market, so Congress sought to control the amount of wheat produced. Congress actually wanted the wheat prices to go up to help the economy. One farmer, Roscoe Filburn, grew more wheat than the law allowed him to, but he was growing it for his own use (for his own animals.) This resulted in the 1942 Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court said that he could not grow more than what the law permitted him to grow. Because while he was growing his own wheat for his own animals, he was then not purchasing food for his animals from somewhere else. Hence, they said he was hurting the national market by growing his own, instead of buying the extra that he needed.
Does this sound crazy to you? That’s because it is crazy! This is like saying that you cannot sew your own clothes because when you sew your own clothes, you are hurting the national economy by not purchasing your clothes.
Clearly in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court made a bad ruling. And yet, today’s Congress used that ruling in the case that was before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare. And both sides of the case acted as if the Wickard v. Filburn case was just fine. The argument against ObamaCare was simply saying that people cannot be forced into purchasing something. The media reported this as “forced into commerce.” However, this was like saying it was okay to tell Roscoe Filburn that he could not grow the extra wheat as long as he was not forced to buy it from someone else. Not only was that wrong because we have a right to grow what we need, but also because stopping him from growing what he needed did in fact force him to buy it from someone else. And this is not to mention the fact that the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional, in and of itself, because Congress only has the power to regulate what is sold to an entity in another state, nation, or Indian tribe, not within a state.
So here we are, in 2012, fighting a health care law that came to be on the back of a wrong interpretation of the Commerce Clause, supported by a bad 1938 law and a bad 1942 Supreme Court judgment. And the people who argued against the health care law in court just fought something within the law, instead of the law itself.
Debra J.M. Smith 10-08-12
www.InformingChristians.com
Photo credit: terrellaftermath.com
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Poeple need to take time to eithger read the bill, scan over it, or do some researrh. I have not heard anyone in the Media or top news anchors tell people there is a lot in the bill that has nothing to do with health. Then when it is fully passed and we complain all they have to say is: ” It was all in the bill. You should have read it!” They are right! It is OUR responsibility as Americans to care enough about OUR country to make sure we don’t get taken to the cleaners.
bobmann101,
Hopefully on election day we will send many of the liberals in congress who voted to pass the bill (without even reading it) back home and out of D.C.
Thanks for your comment,
Debra…
Why didn’t congress read obamacare before they passed it?? We put them in office to do a job and they didn’t do it. They need to be fired. It’s time to clean house!!!!!!
Thank you, nannybear50! I totally agree with you!
I love this article for it’s direct, simple message! Sharing everywhere!
NObama and NObamacare!
Thank you, wrongheifer! –My hope is that some congressional phones will be ringing in D.C. with people asking for our country back.
If forcing individuals to purchase health insurance (Obamacare) is unconstitutional, then why isn’t forcing individuals to pay into a retirement account (social security) unconstitutional or forcing individuals to purchase retirement medical insurance (medicare) unconstitutional?
Good question, uyk7.
All of these social programs are unconstitutional and should have never been to begin with. And we sure did not need yet another one that once it goes too far will be nearly impossible to undo.
Even if the government stopped adding to the numbers of people that are new to the workforce from putting into Social Security and Medicare, such people would still be paying for these programs via other taxation, because our government has to pay people who have already put into the program. It would be decades before things evened out.
Thanks for your comment,
Debra…
uyk7 – You don’t have to participate in Medicare or Social Security if you don’t want to… I don’t and I won’t collect either!! I don’t have to be part of the system!
Actually, you don’t really have a choice in Medicare of Social Security. I don’t know why you think you don’t have to participate. I agree with you, though, that those who do not want to participate should not be forced to.
Hi Daniel!
I wish that the government would stop adding to the number of people forced into the Social Security and Medicare programs. Though it would take years to even things out to where they don’t still pay via other taxation, it would certainly be a start to ending that which should have never been started in the first place.
Thanks for posting my article! You rock!
Debra…
Badagliacco, don’t let the federal government find out that you are working and yet not paying into the system. lol… That’s called getting paid under-the-table, and it can cause you some grief, so-to-say.
Thank you, Ms. Smith. The analysis is exactly right.
The analogy could be tightened up, though.
Thank you, Skptk.
Well said, Debra!
Thanks much, cherykie!
The Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act was a travesty bestowed upon the American people. Unfortunately, this is what happens when activist justices get appointed to the highest court in the land. Most Americans came to the conclusion that the Affordable Health Care Act was unconstitutional. However, the activist’s justices on the Supreme Court turned our constitution upside down and turned it inside out, by ruling it constitutional. I wish we could sue them, but I do believe they are indemnified.
Hi Eddie,
Our lives were played with like game pieces on a board-game; and our freedom was mocked by the highest court in the land.
Thank you for your comment,
Debra…
I agree with most of your article, Debra. It is well-written—until the last paragraph.
I believe the supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts then turned it on its head and Declared it a tax, and since Congress has taxing authority, he said ObamaCare is constitutional AS A TAX. I don’t recall if SCOTUS said Congress has ‘unlimited taxing power,’ but it has been said by numerous (self-called) ‘experts’ in discussion of the Decision.
In the first place, I’ve always understood that if something is unconstitutional under one provision, it cannot be resurrected under another to gain constitutional status. Once unconstitutional—it IS unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts erred significantly by using a constitutional ‘loophole’ for an unconstitutional Act.
In the second place, Congress does NOT have unlimited taxing power. After all, the Declaration of Independence lists the abuses suffered by the colonies under King George III , including: “imposing Taxes on us without our consent.” (Obama and Congress insisted it was NOT a tax.) Congress has the power to tax “incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census enumeration” (Amendment 16.) However, Congress has taxing power only to the extent of funding the limited Powers granted to it by the Constitution. Healthcare and insurance are private-sector industries, and as you stated, neither is an enumerated Power granted to Congress.
Third, by Declaring ObamaCare a tax, SCOTUS already has insured the repeal of ObamaCare in its entirety by technical default—if the highest Court ever again decides to ‘support and defend’ the Constitution. According to other source articles, although the House of Representatives wrote a version of ObamaCare, the Senate wrote its own version (rather than amending the House version,) presenting it (the Senate Bill) to the House for agreement and to Obama for signing into law. Article I, Section 7 states ‘All Bills for raising Revenue shall ‘originate’ in the House of Representatives;…’ In other words, the Senate could have proposed its own version of the Bill but the House still had to ‘originate’ that version, presenting it back to the Senate for agreement and to Obama for signature. That didn’t happen. By Declaring the Senate originated version of ObamaCare a constitutional tax, SCOTUS erred a second time by ignoring Article I, Section 7.
Finally, too many Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that supreme Court Justices have lifetime judiciary appointments and are the ‘final’ word on ‘interpreting’ the Constitution and statutory law.
Justices do NOT have lifetime appointments; they are entitled to “hold their Offices during good Behaviour… ”. It is impossible to believe a Justice who does not uphold the Constitution is exhibiting ‘good Behaviour.’ Any Justice who fails to exhibit ‘good Behaviour’ is subject to impeachment and conviction by Congress—only possible, of course, if we actually had elected congressional Members who also would support and defend the Constitution.
Supreme Court Justices are not gods; they are not infallible. As with all humans, they may make honest mistakes, and (often, in recent decades,) they corrupt the constitutional Rule of Law. The true sovereign Authority in the United States rests with the People. WE are the final word for all Branches of Government. Whether any one Branch, or all three Branches, of Government ignores the Constitution and consent of the governed, the sovereign Authority of the People remains in force until WE ratify new authority.
You bring up a good point about the Court Justices, AZ-Ike.
And I also believe you are correct about the court’s ruling as per the commerce clause, having found the forcing of citizens to obtain health care coverage to be unconstitutional.
However, I don’t view the taxation ruling as having been an over-all ruling on the health care law in its entirety. I believe it was just a ruling on the taxation part within the law.
I don’t believe the court made a ruling on the law in its entirety.
Basically the rulings were that citizens can not be forced to purchase health care coverage, but they can be taxed if they don’t purchase coverage. This is because the federal government can deem such people (on a whole) as a drain on the economy for not having coverage and forcing society (on a whole) to pick up the tab when they get sick.
The last paragraph of my article states: So here we are, in 2012, fighting a health care law that came to be on the back of a wrong interpretation of the Commerce Clause, supported by a bad 1938 law and a bad 1942 Supreme Court judgment. And the people who argued against the health care law in court just fought something within the law, instead of the law itself.
The Supreme Court judgement that I spoke of in that last paragraph was the 1942 judgement, not the recent judgement that pertained to the current health care law. My point about the case that pertained to the current health care law is that the entire law itself should have been argued as unconstitutional, not just one section within the law. But because only the section of the law that forced people to obtain health care coverage (or to be taxed) was argued, that left the court open to make a ruling on just the taxation that was in favor of it.
Had the entire law been argued unconstitutional in court, pointing out that there is no place in the constitution that gives congress the power to make such a law to begin with, an honest court would have had to have deemed the entire law unconstitutional, as the commerce clause does not support the making of the law (nor does anything else in the U.S. Constitution.) The law would have had to have been struck down, as a result. And then if congress wanted to pass a law just on the taxation of those who do not obtain health care coverage, they could have then gone to work on that.
Personally, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts was trying to say (without actually say it), that the law on a whole would not hold up under the commerce clause, but that if all those who were arguing against it were arguing was the section that forced people to purchase coverage or to get taxed, he could approve the taxation part of the law. –I don’t believe Chief Justice Roberts can give either side in a case legal advice on a case that is before the court. But what he did do, appears to have flown right over the heads of those who argued the case.
Thanks for your comment,
Debra…
They didn`t read it because it was multiple thousands of pages. This is why all bills should be limited to 50 pages of less. Then there is no excuse not knowing what`s in it.
I agree with you, viking. –Thanks for posting that.