Obama's hidden ace and gamble; The Commerce Claus

The Commerce Clause is a needed piece of power given to Congress. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited.
However, we all know the saying "give me an inch, I'll take a mile". Obama has just put on his running shoes.

As we all know, Obama has decided to hinge the fate of his Obamacare package on the Commerce Clause. A refresher on what it's all about. Commerce Clause. June 29th will prove to be a pivotal moment in American History.

Let's break this down. This, this is going to create ripples that will turn into waves. I'll use civil rights as an example.

A lot if not most of the social changes ushered in during the civil rights era was done under the Commerce Clause. Look at the landmark cases, Katzenbach v. McClung; Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. This is huge! For their arguments, the government basically told white people that your discrimination is affecting the cash flow of the states, and as the US Government... I can't have that. It was about money. Ain't that something. Forced integration of the different cultures was forced in public venues because Uncle Sam wanted our money, not for that "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". That's the argument they used and won with in court. The Supreme Court too.

The New Deal, fishing rights, the list is quite considerable. Social and economic policy was and still is molded by the commerce clause no doubt about it. This policy prevents farmer's from going to price warfare with each other( as well as the industrialized portions. And at the same time, it prevents someone in America from saying "No X Allowed" (with X being who ever is being discriminated against at that time). That's the commerce clause at it's best and you'll have to google it find it at it's worst. The feds sets the pace.

Obama has decided to use this clause to force his health care package upon us. Crazy like a fox. The states started lining up and doing their paperwork to revoke it and prevent Uncle Sam from enforcing it. The Catholic Church is warming up their lawyers as well as other religious and private organizations. Even if Congress passed it, it was going to burn in flames anyways. Obamacare has no legal leg to stand on (pun intended ).

The idea behind it is righteous however the implementation is severely flawed. The government will give out lowest bid contracts to private companies to provide health insurance for those without health insurance, the sick, and the poor. And if you're healthy or don't want health insurance (i can see why someone homeless wouldn't have it or a recent legal immigrant) you get penalized and fined. Let's think about this. How is "you" TAKING my money going to help me find some coverage, oh that's right.. you just want my money after all. You can easily see how bad that is going to be. Corners will be cut to keep profit margins high, remember that the contracts was made to get money on behalf of the bidder

Your going to have a lessening of medical standards, procedures, and a dilution of the already powerful but influential medical sector. Big Pharma and Obamacare go hand and hand. GSK can pump out some "wonder" drug (like they do now) that's cheap to manufacturer, charge the government a premium for it's production and will still cut a profit because more than likely, you'd still have to pay for that drug (free samples don't last that long, no sorry). Here is a news article for some light reading www.newsmax.com

With Obamacare, Uncle Sam can literally decided what you do and don't eat. Don't like it, fine.. starve. If the government deems a certain food as "good" and "healthy" they can decide that only those foods are available for the public to eat, see where i am going. We already have seen how they treat school lunches, imagine that for dinner. That's why Obamacare was not going to fly with the states. They knew better. Here is another viewpoint of it have a read On Broccoli, ObamaCare, and the Commerce Clause.

Obama is trying to slip it past us with this critical clause. Crazy like a fox, remember that. Obama is a lawyer.

The commerce clause stands on the fact of whatever is being debated affecting interstate commerce. How in the hell is healthcare affected or affecting interstate commerce aside from everyone going to Florida for prescription pills.

Okay, now remember what it enforces. All of those cases, laws, policies, whatever, you name it and if the commerce clause supports it, it's up for grabs. That's right so that Nazi can slap up a sign and say "No Jews" and he can fight it and win because the commerce clause no longer applies.

Welcome to the new America.

S & F!

I agree. The commerce clause will definitely be used to pass Obamacare, just as it was used to pass many of the Civil Rights cases. And yes, it is the 'nanny state on steroids'.

As it goes, the Commerce Clause is used to regulate interstate economic activity between the states; in the Wickard v Filburn case, it was used to prevent a man from growing a large amount of wheat for private consumption, to keep the cost down from wheat-buying consumers. In the Heart of Atlanta Motel v the US, a private business owner was forced to serve blacks because otherwise, those blacks had to travel outside of Georgia if they wanted a motel stay. In the case of Obamacare, it will mandate individuals to pay into the healthcare system to prevent higher costs of the program.

In my own personal opinion, like you, I agree that the Commerce Clause is Big Gov't out of control. As we see, it was practically used to force integration (something that people have to right to be against) under the guise of 'commerce'.

I anticipate the outcome of this case.

Originally posted by cenpuppie

Forced integration of the different cultures was forced in public venues because Uncle Sam wanted our money,

That's where I stopped reading. When desegregation was described as "forced integration of different cultures".

reply to post by Indigo5


Open your eyes and do some googling. Read the piece objectively which you failed to do. You already have your mind made up and didn't bother to read what was written why don't you read those two landmark civil right cases. Read and learn, most of what you learned in school is fuzzy logic, offensive ain't it huh?

Imagine how i felt as a black person when i realized this. It wasn't about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because if it was, the equal protection would have been used.

No, the gov't said we are forcing you to integrate because it will interfere will interstate commerce.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Open your eyes and do some googling. Read the piece objectively which you failed to do. You already have your mind made up and didn't bother to read what was written why don't you read those two landmark civil right cases. Read and learn, most of what you learned in school is fuzzy logic, offensive ain't it huh?

Imagine how i felt as a black person when i realized this. It wasn't about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because if it was, the equal protection would have been used.

No, the gov't said we are forcing you to integrate because it will interfere will interstate commerce.

So are you saying you preferred segregation?

If not, then what would been the other means of achieving the equality that civil rights leaders fought for?

reply to post by DJM8507


Nope. I never said that. What i did say was that the government forced it on the masses for economic reasons. If they didn't then those two cases would have used the equal protection clause.

reply to post by cenpuppie
Given the idiotic Supreme Court misapplications of this clause, I have no idea if the original intent and really-real world will have any bearing here one way or the other - so just as has been for the last many decades, the clause will likely continue to be used to empower all sorts of government shenanigans - but the original scope and intent had nothing to do with such and a good review of this can be found at this link.

In short, the commerce clause was never originally intended to be such a broad and sweeping allowance of power, and instead boiled down to this:

Why did the framers use the words “regulation of commerce” that was understood by everyone to mean only duties and imposts on imports of consumable goods if there was an additional power desired to be invested in Congress that could effect domestic business?

The answer should be obvious: Taxes had a dual purpose, 1) to raise revenue and 2) to regulate commerce. In other words, the regulation of commerce between the States never had anything to do with legislative powers over domestic industry but everything to do with protecting or encouraging manufactures through taxation of imports

President Wilson summed the whole point up well:

Its power is “to regulate commerce between the States,” and the attempts now made during every session of Congress to carry the implications of that power beyond the utmost boundaries of reasonable and honest inference show that the only limits likely to be observed by politicians are those set by the good sense and conservative temper of the country. The proposed Federal legislation with regard to the regulation of child labor affords a striking example. If the power to regulate commerce between the States can be stretched to include the regulation of labor in mills and factories, it can be made to embrace every particular of the industrial organization and action of the country. The only limitations Congress would observe, should the Supreme Court assent to such obviously absurd extravagancies of interpretation, would be the limitations of opinion and of circumstance.

It's just a shame none of this means the government will ever recognize valid limitations to its own power and authority, or SCOTUS any realistic approaches to its rulings...

Originally posted by cenpuppie

Open your eyes and do some googling.

Have for a long time now.

The following statements range from ill-informed to outright bunk...And Newsmax isn't a "news" source, it is a site where anyone can post a story and get money for number of clicks, thus encouraging BS.

Originally posted by cenpuppie


The government will give out lowest bid contracts to private companies to provide health insurance for those without health insurance, the sick, and the poor.

And if you're healthy or don't want health insurance (i can see why someone homeless wouldn't have it or a recent legal immigrant) you get penalized and fined.

Let's think about this. How is "you" TAKING my money going to help me find some coverage, oh that's right.. you just want my money after all.

Corners will be cut to keep profit margins high, remember that the contracts was made to get money on behalf of the bidder

Your going to have a lessening of medical standards, procedures, and a dilution of the already powerful but influential medical sector.

Big Pharma and Obamacare go hand and hand. GSK can pump out some "wonder" drug (like they do now) that's cheap to manufacturer, charge the government a premium for it's production and will still cut a profit because more than likely, you'd still have to pay for that drug (free samples don't last that long, no sorry). Here is a news article for some light reading www.newsmax.com

With Obamacare, Uncle Sam can literally decided what you do and don't eat.

If the government deems a certain food as "good" and "healthy" they can decide that only those foods are available for the public to eat, see where i am going.

I reall must agree in spirit with the OP.......legally or otherwise the goverment is dedicated to overthrowing your civil rights 24/7
This is what goverments do, they govern....
The problem lies with the refusal to work within the constitutions boundaries, and the inflated meanings they give to such laws as the commerce act and others(most any others they think appropriate to get the decision they want.....)
Much of what i hear lately smacks of high treason.....
NO POTUS , no Congress or Senate, can sign away the right to bear arms to the control of the UN or an other agency...EVER!
Contemplating such an outcome is to condone a treason of the worst sort.
Anti constitutional laws such as the NDAA provisions for detention without warrant or trial, or suspension of hebias corpus, are acts of treason in themselves....voting for such laws amounts to at least condoning such treason if not outright commintting it.
many presidential shortcuts have established themselves over the intervening years since the constitution was penned, but the whole gamut of such things is totally against what this country stands for......
In a way, this Commerce Claus just comes right out and says what everyone already knows.....
Its the money not the people, that rule this country.

Of course, the Commerce Clause argument fails to support Obamacare on one simple, logical point. If I don't buy something, then no commerce has taken place, hence nothing to regulate.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Of course, the Commerce Clause argument fails to support Obamacare on one simple, logical point. If I don't buy something, then no commerce has taken place, hence nothing to regulate.

You have to understand how the commerce clause works. If commercial activity between the states is interrupted by the sale of, or rather the LACK of sale of a product, the commerce clause is allowed to kick in.

SCOTUS long ago rendered itself irrelevant, and just another instrument of the federal government in which to rape the Constitution with.

I would bet vital parts of my male anatomy that says the men who actually wrote the Constitution have already worn holes in their coffins from rolling over so much after seeing what the "justices" have done to this country.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by DJM8507

 

Nope. I never said that. What i did say was that the government forced it on the masses for economic reasons. If they didn't then those two cases would have used the equal protection clause.

What are you talking about?
It was the government STOPPING segregation that ended segregation. They did not force anything on anyone. They put an end to just that. White people with all the money and all the power were perfectly happy to just keep the other races down because the law allowed them to.
Suddenly they had to be racist on their own and you say it was something forced on someone?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by DJM8507

 

Nope. I never said that. What i did say was that the government forced it on the masses for economic reasons. If they didn't then those two cases would have used the equal protection clause.

What are you talking about?
It was the government STOPPING segregation that ended segregation. They did not force anything on anyone. They put an end to just that. White people with all the money and all the power were perfectly happy to just keep the other races down because the law allowed them to.
Suddenly they had to be racist on their own and you say it was something forced on someone?

Being 'racist' is not illegal. I am black. however, if a white person does not want to associate with me, they don't have to and shouldn't be made by the government to do so. That's something that should and would happen naturally overtime...

However, with the commerce clause, it did regulate not only economic activity, but social activity as well. Look at "The Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States"....this was the high water mark of the Civil Rights cases. A motel owner personally decided that he did not want to service blacks. He did not own a school or any other public facility; yet the government saw fit to force him to socially engage with blacks under the guise of interstate economic activity- the commerce clause.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Of course, the Commerce Clause argument fails to support Obamacare on one simple, logical point. If I don't buy something, then no commerce has taken place, hence nothing to regulate.

You have to understand how the commerce clause works. If commercial activity between the states is interrupted by the sale of, or rather the LACK of sale of a product, the commerce clause is allowed to kick in.

commerce - an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

A lack of a sale is not commerce. In fact, it is pretty much the opposite of commerce. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, not require it.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


The lack of sale of a (necessary) product in one state drives up the cost for those consumers, forcing them to have to purchase it out of state.

Wickard v Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Commerce Clause

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Being 'racist' is not illegal. I am black.

Congratulations. I am not sure what your post really has to do with what I was saying to someone else but hey, at least you got to say and I am sure you feel better.

Originally posted by DJM8507

So are you saying you preferred segregation?

If not, then what would been the other means of achieving the equality that civil rights leaders fought for?

Ad Hoc, ergo propter hoc - non sequitur!

Just because one disputes an action does not automatically mean that they advocate for the opposite. This is a false dichotomy fallacy or a "one follows another" fallacy.

This is the exact same fallacious logic employed by our politicians when passing such BS laws. Had the greater public been adequately schooled in the art and science of logic and language, groups would not be so easily fooled.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Of course, the Commerce Clause argument fails to support Obamacare on one simple, logical point. If I don't buy something, then no commerce has taken place, hence nothing to regulate.

You have to understand how the commerce clause works. If commercial activity between the states is interrupted by the sale of, or rather the LACK of sale of a product, the commerce clause is allowed to kick in.

You are absolutely, unequivocally incorrect!

First of all, the term "Regulate" means to "Make regular". The definition has been bastardized over the centuries to become meaning "the making of rules" - now I wonder who might have done that!? The idea behind the framer's intention was to ensure that ALL commerce between the states be regular - meaning that no state could impose an unfair advantage over another in areas of trade. This would mean that all excise and importation taxes would be "Regular" between and among the several states and would be levied and collected at the behest of the federal government. The Commerce Clause, in short, was designed to ensure that governments could not hamper or interfere with free commerce.

It is now ironic that the government (Lawyers) have tortured the meaning of the legal definitions to the point where the law now guarantees that government apply governance over any and every activity associated with commerce, or even a lack thereof. And the stupid and ignorant people we are - we accept it!

reply to post by ButterCookie


Exactly!

You gave a prime example of how the government will spout any nonsense to justify their position when what they are doing is blatantly unconstitutional. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the framers of the Constitution intended that the commerce clause should be used by the federal government to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own land for his own use.

The only true authority they have anymore is pure force. They no longer see the Constitution as the law of the land, instead it is a minor obstacle to cast aside whenever it is convenient.

If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, I hope it serves as a wake-up call to any thinking American that no branch of the federal government cares about either the Constitution or the American people. It would be time for the American people to exercise their First and Second Amendment rights and stage a Million Gun March on Washington, DC to remind the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court who they used to work for, before they are given a fair trial for treason during wartime.