Two of the three judges asserted that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to compel individuals' behavior by dint of their mere existence. A requirement that citizens purchase a product -- in this case, health care insurance -- whether they wish to or not, has never before occurred in all of American history.
Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one’s health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care.
It is under this rubric that the Court shreds the United States Constitution, eviscerates the Declaration of Independence and completely ignores the stated intent of the Framers in The Federalist Papers.Because, the Judges assert, that most people will participate in the health care market, the federal government has the right to compel -- with the force of law -- individuals to purchase health insurance contracts of the central government's design.
How is the health care industry segregated from other industries to prevent the federal government from encroaching upon every other segment of human activity? The judges spare but a few words on this critical issue, stating "...unlike nearly all other industries, the health care market is governed by federal and state laws requiring institutions to provide services regardless of a patient’s ability to pay."
In other words, the only "firewall" the judges construct to shield other industries from the Orwellian reach of the government is one made of cardboard. In essence, because the health care market is already regulated, the industry is said to be unique and therefore can be utterly controlled by the central government.
Consider:
All citizens will need shelter and many regulations already dictate the nature and construction of housing. Can the central government compel individuals to purchase certain minimum levels of housing and builders to offer certain services under a regime of price controls? Apparently so.
All citizens will need food and a battery of regulations at every level of government already dictate every aspect of food manufacture and distribution. Can the central government require individuals to buy certain foods -- perhaps under the aegis of healthy eating -- and businesses to offer a menu dictated by a central authority? Apparently so.
All citizens will require transportation and a host of regulations govern every modality of travel -- by air, bus, automobile, and even bicycle. Can the central govenrment require all individuals to buy, say, bicycles under the banner of healthy living, clean energy and personal transportation? Apparently so.
Under this decision, with this Court, the destruction of our country -- through its transformation into a totalitarian regime -- comes one step closer to reality.
2012 may be our last chance to save this Republic, if indeed any time remains at all.
The progressives have seized and destroyed our public media and our education "system." The finest health care system in the world is today being brutally savaged under irresponsible progressive control.
ReplyDeleteThe results never remotely resemble the ends imagined to justify these gross violations of the Republic.
Ignorance and lies are all we see during what takes every appearance of a coming dark age on Earth.
This being America and with our capitalistic system (for now) certain things always work. I propose an incentive system for our legislators. A bonus could be paid for every law repealed,a larger one for a whole agency closed down and a percentage of any spending reduction. On the other side, a percentage could be withdrawn for new spending, tax increases, regulations imposed or laws enacted. For the rich legislators, the penalty amounts would be scaled for their net worth, to make it equally painful.
ReplyDeleteJust like today, it was into this politically-charged situation that the legal case of Wickard v. Filburn
ReplyDeletecame to the Supreme Court. Because of the real threat of Court-packing by Roosevelt,
the Supreme Court blinked on Wickard.
Wickard was a wheat farmer in Illinois and Filburn was the Secretary of Agriculture. In
order to maintain wheat prices, Congress had instituted price supports for Wheat markets,
along with quotas for growing wheat. Wickard was not only growing wheat for market,
but he also grew an extra acre of wheat to harvest to give to his wife to grind into flour to
make bread for the Wickard family. The Department of Agriculture, tasked to enforce
the wheat quotas, asserted that the acre of wheat Wickard grew for his family was a
violation of the quotas.
This is what Judge Sutton writing for the majority on the 6th circuit used as a basis for finding Obamacare constitutional.
This orginal finding was assinine and to use that to confirm consitutionality on this monstrosity is bordering on wondrland! I hope Supremes will throw out the 6th circuit like they do with the 9th circuit and find Obamacare unconstitutional and a joke!
Doug the main problem with this ruling is not that the government can force us to buy things. It is that the government can force us to buy things we don't want.
ReplyDeleteBecause this is medical insurance we are talking about. So what this ruling really says is that everyone has to pay into a system that could provide things like abortions, sex changes, in vitro fertilization, breast implants, and so forth. (As in Canada and/or the UK, where these things are done already)
So it's worse than being made to buy things - it's being made to buy things FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR that you would never want in a million years because of your lifestyle decisions ruling those things out.