Obamacare: Atlanta appeals court rules healthcare mandate unconstitutional
The latest round in the challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare has gone against the Obama regime, as an Atlanta appeals court has ruled by a margin of 2-1 that the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional.
This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives
The court upheld the rest of Obamacare, but this is a much needed victory as this issue makes its way to the Supreme Court; this is a battle won, but the war is not over for the Obama regime will appeal this decision.
While this is a victory that I am happy to write about, there is something else I wanted to look at in this decision; the dissenting opinion, because I found it to be quite worrisome.
Here is what Stanley Marcus had to say in his dissent:
The majority “has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy
Yes, it is an undenyable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially, but that is exactly what is wrong with the system today-it is not something to glorify and use as an excuse to expand government powers even more.
Apparently Justice Marcus believes there is no limit to what the commerce clause can be used for, and his justification for his position is the fact that the courts have already extended the commerce clause into areas it was never intended to go.
Using his justification, where is the limit to what the commerce clause can be used for? He uses the court sanctioned expansion of the commerce clause to justify further expansion and there is no telling how far the courts could take this in the future.
If a court uses the commerce clause to extend the government’s reach into healthcare and this further expands the power of the commerce clause, won’t the next decision on the next issue then be able to use the latest expansion of the commerce clause into healthcare as a justification to expand the power once again; maybe the next decision will use the commerce clause to make a decision about what foods a person can eat, or what car he or she must drive? Where does this end?
My biggest concern is that Justice Marcus is not alone in his opinion, there are many more out there who hold opinion that the constitution is an ever expanding document. The constitution was written as a limiting document–it told the government what it could not do–and yet we have many judges who feel that they can justify an expansion of government be reinterpreting a document which was supposed to do just the opposite.
America's Watchtower 
The commerce clause does not allow the Congress to regulate commerce among individuals and companies (…the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html I fail to read where commerce is regulated between citizens and businesses. This only allows regulation between governmental bodies (foreign and domestic)and nothing else. This argument by the government was properly judged by the Appellate Court. The next step I expect is to hear an argument by the Obama Regime on the the last clause in this article. If the procedures had been followed properly (they were not) then the Supremacy Clause could have been applied.
One more thing here is a link to a page explaining how the Commerce Clause has been expanded over time.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp
LikeLike
Thanks for the links, I will check them out. I believe the commerce clause is the most aboused clause in the constitution and it is about time that we reverse this trend.
LikeLike
I hope we don’t end up having to depend on SCOTUS. Let’s win big in 2012 and revoke the damn law.
LikeLike
If I am not mistaken this legislation is on track to make it to the Supreme Court by next summer, before the 2012 election but I could be wrong. Even if the SC does rule the legislation constitutional before the election we still can hold out hope that we will elect a president and a Congress willing to repeal the bill.
LikeLike
Predicted but glad it happened. And the judge is apparently a Dem. I have always thought most of Obamakare would be tossed out of court. You can’t force me to buy insurance.
Last I checked the right to make bad decisions was still an option here.
LikeLike
This decision wasn’t a surprise but we still need every victory we can get because all of these decisions seem to be by a close margin. Even the SC decision is expected to be 5-4, and I won’t be relieved until this is finally over.
LikeLike
“Generally accepted?” By who?
LikeLike
I think he was talking about the courts and the government; he was basically giving the feds a license to do whatever the hell they want to.
LikeLike
Here’s why I’m concerned. So many of these judges today have forgotten their role. Their job is to use the tools they have before them to make a decision on the constitutionality of a law. The only tools they should be using in my opinion are the writings of our founders on these issues. They had strong opinions on the constitution and the intent of the document. Their opinions should be one of the main things judges use when trying to understand the intent of the clause or article. There are plenty of letters and manuscripts that tell exactly what the founders’ intent was. Instead we have judges ignoring the intent of our founders and working off of precedent. This is exactly what Justice Marcus is doing. He basing his argument off of the notion that congress’s power in this area has expanded over the years even though anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution knows that this document was crafted to limit the power of government. If I can understand this then why can’t a Harvard educated judge?
LikeLike
Well said John, these judges are out of control and thankfully he was in the minority on this issue. By using the expansion of the government as a justification to further expand the government there is no stopping future expansion of the government.
LikeLike
The dreaded Commerce clause. This is the same one being used to require farmers to have CDL licenses. Because the grain they produce “might” be sold across state lines, One can see the absolute need to get this clause under control.
LikeLike
Yes, it is one of the most abused clauses in the constitution, right along with the general welfare clause, and this judge’s statement is proof enough that we need to get this under control before it is too late–if it isn’t already.
LikeLike