johnwk
03-26-2012, 07:38 AM
We are told by certain members of Congress who have voted to pass America's Affordable Health Care Choices Act that Congress has the authority to enact and enforce the new law under Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the States. But is that true? Was the power to regulate commerce among the States intended by our founders to be a grant of power to allow Congress to enter the various States and interfere with the inalienable right of the people to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs? Is this really within the definition of “commerce” as it was understood by the founders during the time our Constitution was framed and ratified? The answer to this question is of vital importance because a fundamental rule of constitutional law requires
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption”
In addition to this rule there is another rule to be followed which is, enforcing the expressed intentions under which our Constitution was adopted, but our Courts are finding it more fashionable these days to ignore the rule and engage in judicial tyranny. A recent example being the Kelo decision. This second rule, regarding the enforcement of legislative intent, is summarized as follows:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted) Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Thus, to answer the question, is the exercise of authority as described in “Obamacare” within the intended limits of Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the States, two things must be established as fact: (1) the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founders was intended to included the regulation of personal choices and decisions which people make regarding their health care needs; (2) The purpose for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to include authority to regulate the internal commerce of each State, and vests a federal supreme power to likewise regulate the people’s health care needs and choices therein.
So, what is the meaning of commerce as used in our Constitution? The historical record establishes that the word “commerce“, as our founding fathers used the word was inextricably connected and limited to trade and transportation of merchandise which took place “among the States”.
In U.S. vs. Lopez, after exhaustively documenting the meaning of commerce during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified, the Court summarized the constitutional meaning of commerce as follows: “Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”
It appears only too clear from the meaning of “commerce” as used during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified, that the power in question was intended to apply to trade and transportation of merchandise which took place “among the States” as distinguished from the same activity which occurred within a State’s borders!
Indeed, the word “commerce” as understood by our founders had absolutely nothing to do with, or was even remotely related to the people‘s “health care“ needs within the States.
Let us now determine what the intended purpose of granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the States is. What was the evil to be corrected? A clue revealing the purpose is immediately found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
This happens to be the very intentions for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted, and can be boil down to an intention to insure free trade among the States. In Federalist Paper No. 42 we find the very intentions for which the power was granted:
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s exported goods, wares and merchandise as they passed through its borders, or interfere with the traffic in such articles.
Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was also intended to allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a State‘s inspection laws:
“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”
It is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be delegating authority to Congress to enter the various States to regulate the health care needs of the people therein and interfere with the people’s personal choices and decision making regarding their health care needs.
As a matter of fact, our very own Supreme Court is on record repeatedly acknowledging health laws are within the powers retained by the states!
For example, Justice John Marshall stated the following in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress.
And Justice Barbour referenced the above case in New York v. Miln, 1837, and confirmed the State’s retained authority over the subject of health laws:
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."
Finally, almost 100 years later the Supreme Court again acknowledged Congress is without power to regulate medical practices in the States.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” _ Linder v. United States, 1925 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html)
The fact is, our founding fathers intentions concerning Congress’ powers as described in the above mentioned cases are summarized in Federalist No. 45
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
And the above words were given force and effect when the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to our Constitution were adopted!
And this brings us to another question. When have the American People debated granting power to Congress to enter their States and tax for, spend on and regulate their health care needs and choices, and then, as required under Article V of our Constitution, gave their consent to such power by a three fourths approval of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof? The answer is never! As a matter of fact a majority of the States, have officially rejected such power being granted to the federal government by filing suite against Obamacare, and, a majority of the American likewise reject the adoption and enforcement of “Obamacare”. So what can be pointed to in our Constitution authorizing Congress to enter the States and interfere with the people’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs?
JWK
Federal health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote!
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption”
In addition to this rule there is another rule to be followed which is, enforcing the expressed intentions under which our Constitution was adopted, but our Courts are finding it more fashionable these days to ignore the rule and engage in judicial tyranny. A recent example being the Kelo decision. This second rule, regarding the enforcement of legislative intent, is summarized as follows:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted) Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Thus, to answer the question, is the exercise of authority as described in “Obamacare” within the intended limits of Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the States, two things must be established as fact: (1) the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founders was intended to included the regulation of personal choices and decisions which people make regarding their health care needs; (2) The purpose for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to include authority to regulate the internal commerce of each State, and vests a federal supreme power to likewise regulate the people’s health care needs and choices therein.
So, what is the meaning of commerce as used in our Constitution? The historical record establishes that the word “commerce“, as our founding fathers used the word was inextricably connected and limited to trade and transportation of merchandise which took place “among the States”.
In U.S. vs. Lopez, after exhaustively documenting the meaning of commerce during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified, the Court summarized the constitutional meaning of commerce as follows: “Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”
It appears only too clear from the meaning of “commerce” as used during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified, that the power in question was intended to apply to trade and transportation of merchandise which took place “among the States” as distinguished from the same activity which occurred within a State’s borders!
Indeed, the word “commerce” as understood by our founders had absolutely nothing to do with, or was even remotely related to the people‘s “health care“ needs within the States.
Let us now determine what the intended purpose of granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the States is. What was the evil to be corrected? A clue revealing the purpose is immediately found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
This happens to be the very intentions for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted, and can be boil down to an intention to insure free trade among the States. In Federalist Paper No. 42 we find the very intentions for which the power was granted:
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s exported goods, wares and merchandise as they passed through its borders, or interfere with the traffic in such articles.
Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was also intended to allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a State‘s inspection laws:
“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”
It is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be delegating authority to Congress to enter the various States to regulate the health care needs of the people therein and interfere with the people’s personal choices and decision making regarding their health care needs.
As a matter of fact, our very own Supreme Court is on record repeatedly acknowledging health laws are within the powers retained by the states!
For example, Justice John Marshall stated the following in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress.
And Justice Barbour referenced the above case in New York v. Miln, 1837, and confirmed the State’s retained authority over the subject of health laws:
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."
Finally, almost 100 years later the Supreme Court again acknowledged Congress is without power to regulate medical practices in the States.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” _ Linder v. United States, 1925 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html)
The fact is, our founding fathers intentions concerning Congress’ powers as described in the above mentioned cases are summarized in Federalist No. 45
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
And the above words were given force and effect when the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to our Constitution were adopted!
And this brings us to another question. When have the American People debated granting power to Congress to enter their States and tax for, spend on and regulate their health care needs and choices, and then, as required under Article V of our Constitution, gave their consent to such power by a three fourths approval of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof? The answer is never! As a matter of fact a majority of the States, have officially rejected such power being granted to the federal government by filing suite against Obamacare, and, a majority of the American likewise reject the adoption and enforcement of “Obamacare”. So what can be pointed to in our Constitution authorizing Congress to enter the States and interfere with the people’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs?
JWK
Federal health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote!