Can you explain why the Commerce Claus would not apply to national health care policy as Republicans claim?
The provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities between the states and with foreign countries and Indian tribes.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.
Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. Since it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.
Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial. Commerce with Indian tribes refers to traffic or commercial exchanges involving both the United States and American Indians.
The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor. That disparity was the source of constant economic battles between the states. The exercise by Congress of its regulatory power has increased steadily with the growth and expansion of industry and means of transportation.
No, of course not. Because it does.
This is just another ruse put out by the GOP to try to thwart the will of the American people.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:01 am
It says they can regulate it. It doesn’t say they can force you to engage in it.
"to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
That doesn’t even say it can regulate individuals much less make them purchase services.
References :
March 26th, 2010 at 9:49 am
No, of course not. Because it does.
This is just another ruse put out by the GOP to try to thwart the will of the American people.
References :
March 26th, 2010 at 10:21 am
"The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor."
In what way does this pertain to this unholy, crappy bill?
References :
March 26th, 2010 at 10:53 am
TELL that to all the CORP GOP KLOWNZ THAT OUTSOURCED ALL THE JOBS TO CHINA
References :
March 26th, 2010 at 11:30 am
there’s another key provision in Obamacare that probably violates the Tenth Amendment: the state exchanges.
The Tenth Amendment went for so many years without being used to strike down any law that it came to be regarded as what is called a “dead letter” in the Constitution, meaning a provision that says some sort of obvious statement, but that isn’t actually used by the courts for anything.
Then, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court shocked the legal world by striking down two laws for violating the Tenth Amendment. The first was New York v. United States in 1992, where the Court struck down a federal law requiring states to pass state laws for the disposal of radioactive waste, and to issue regulations for implementing those laws. Then in Printz v. United States in 1997, the Court struck down a provision of the Brady Act—a federal gun-control law—that required state and local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun purchasers.
From these two cases emerged the anti-commandeering principle, holding that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from commandeering—or ordering—any branch of state government to do anything. The states are sovereign and answer only to their voters, not to Washington, D.C.
Therein lies the problem for the Senate’s Obamacare bill. It requires each state to pass laws setting up a statewide non-profit insurance exchanges. It then requires the states to pass regulations for implementing those laws. And it further requires the states to dedicate staff and spend state money to administer those programs.
In most respects, this is a straight-out repeat of those 1992 and 1997 cases. The main difference is that Obamacare violates the anti-commandeering principle in a far more severe and egregious way than those previous laws ever did.
This is really stunning. If New York and Printz had been decided as far back as 1910, then maybe you could imagine Congress deciding to roll the dice with a completely new Supreme Court a century later. But these are recent cases with conservative outcomes, and the only difference is that the Court has become a bit more conservative then it was in the 1990s when it decided those two cases….
The only way the Dems can get around this is to drag out the constitutional challenges until Obama, in a second term as president, may have a chance to replace two conservative Supreme Court justices with liberals.
References :
http://imkane.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/unconstitutional-obamacare-violates-tenth-amendment-anti-commandeering-principle/