The following article appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. The author Ezra Klein attempts to explain how the individual mandate found in the new health care law is constitutionally sound. Klein reasons that, because the law as written determines that the individual mandate "is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce", coupled with the case of U.S. vs South-Eastern Underwriters Association in 1944 in which the United States Supreme Court "ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation", then the individual mandate is in fact constitutional.
Mr. Klein, I agree an individual mandate may very well be "commercial and economic in nature". It also may substantially affect interstate commerce but I have yet to find it written anywhere in the United States Constitution where the federal government has the authority to force American citizens to buy a product. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the federal government does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce and the supreme court did rule that insurance is interstate commerce. Does that mean the federal government can force us to buy potatoes from Idaho, cars from Detroit, or apples from Washington? Are these not examples of interstate commerce? Would an individual mandate not also be "commercial and economic in nature," in these instances?
I know that our Constitution is a bit confusing to you Mr. Klein so I will do my best to simplify this. Simply defined, interstate means between the states and commerce is defined as the buying and selling of goods. Based on those definitions reason would have me believe that in order for a citizen of the United States to fall under regulation of the "interstate commerce clause" that person would have to be engaged in the act of buying or selling goods regulated by the federal government. I'm not sure about you Mr. Klein but I have always been able to tell the difference between action and inaction. I will give you a chance to wrap your mind around this and will save the 2nd Amendment and your obvious lack of knowledge regarding the tea party movement for another time.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/what_the_tea_party_wants_from.html
Friday, December 31, 2010
U.S. Constitution confusing?
Saw this on michellemalkin.com. If Mr. Klein finds our constitution confusing I would hate to see him try to follow written instructions. Sounds as if he may be one of those people they make warning labels for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
