Dec 13 2010

The Commerce Clause, or involuntary servitude?

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 5:36 pm

Big legal setback for Obama’s health care overhaul

President Barack Obama’s historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge’s declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

“Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We’ve already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional,” Obama said. “You’ve got one judge who disagreed. That’s the nature of these things.”

 

I suppose the simplest question is this:  if the federal government can mandate the purchase of health insurance for all citizens, what can’t it require you to buy?  Is there anything the government can’t require or control under the commerce clause?

Do I have to buy galoshes?  Cheesecake?  A TV?  A phone?  A computer?  Vitamins?  A bicycle?  A dictionary (to look up the meaning of words in the federally mandated copy of the IRS code that I will have to buy)?  A subscription to the New York Times?  A time share condo (to live in while I have the federally mandated evironmental check on my house)?  A car (to flee marauding IRS agents)?

You laugh.  Or sneer.  But in essence, there is no limit to congressional power if I can be forced to buy anything I simply do not want or choose to buy.

 

8 Responses to “The Commerce Clause, or involuntary servitude?”

  1. Mike C says:

    Bad news, we are already required to by retirement insurance. It’s called social security.

  2. kdippre says:

    You will be required to purchase the complete works of Webern.

  3. harmonicminer says:

    Well…. I already own the complete works of Webern, on LP, from a purchase I made in college, I think. Only a few records held it all.

    Social security at least does not require us to purchase a commodity or service directly from a private vendor who lobbied for the law to require it. Not that I like the system and its requirements… but this health care thing really is new. I can’t think of anything for sale in the private world of business that we are absolutely required to purchase by the government, simply to live here, especially anything so expensive.

  4. innermore says:

    Most states require the purchase of car insurance before issuing a drivers license, mortgage insurance before approving a mortgage, and we don’t blink at the “responsibility” in that. Government makes us buy lots of stupid things from private sector lobbyists like: overpriced emissions tests, slanted history textbooks, ineffective flu shots. Despite how we may vote, the shopping list keeps expanding. It’s not a direct, “absolutely required” buy, but it’s pretty close.

    BTW, insurance itself is a socially mandated scam already.

  5. harmonicminer says:

    All of these things are, to one degree or another, the result of decisions we make(to drive, or to buy something we can’t afford without a loan), or just general taxation of fairly minimal cost for items deemed “in the public interest” (often not… but the price tag for history books, emissions tests and flu shots is very low on a “per person” basis, and there is a “general welfare” element in each, however misplaced). You pay for history books by paying “school tax” when you buy a home, you don’t have to buy emissions tests if you don’t drive, and no one forces you to buy a flu shot.

    These things do not constant the mandated purchase of what can only be described as a “big ticket” item that may well not even be used by the purchaser, merely for being a living human in the society. I can’t think of anything remotely like this under current law and practice, where the purchase of a very expensive item is required that is not the direct result of any other choice, other than to live the USA. It is not merely “more of the same”, it’s a huge change for the worse.

  6. JC says:

    Phil, I am sure I am not the first to ask, but how difficult is it to allow us to “share” your great insights on Facebook, for example? I suppose I can just copy and paste and , of course, give you credit….just wondering.

  7. harmonicminer says:

    JC, feel free to just copy/paste, or put in a link to harmonicminer, or whatever is easy for you. Of course, I’m always happy to receive due credit for my brilliant insights… er, I mean intellectual blunders masquerading as incisive rhetoric.

  8. innermore says:

    So you think they’ve stepped over the line this time, ay? Don’t worry. They’ll repackage it for you next year. Maybe the new bipartisan congress will give us a tax break on the health insurance we must purchase in order to keep our social security. Na, still too much. Wait, I know! Make the EMPLOYERS buy our health insurance.

    I hear it’s cheaper to pay the fine than the premium every year. Sounds like just another unenforceable law to me.

Leave a Reply