ObamaCare's Unhealthy Expansion of Federal Power
Writing at Forbes, Institute for Justice President Chip Mellor lays out the constitutional case against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate:
Congress claimed the power to enact PPACA under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which says in its entirety that Congress shall have the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The clause was placed in the Constitution to avoid balkanizing the new nation by giving Congress the power to prevent states from erecting trade barriers….
[This power] was always tied to some activity—some decision made by the individual or entity being regulated that subjected it to Congress' power. That changed with the enactment of PPACA. For the first time Congress attempted to further its goals by compelling activity or, put another way, by regulating inactivity. Until this the government had always said, "You are engaging in commerce, so we can regulate you." PPACA turns that on its head. Now the government is saying, "We are going to force you to engage in commerce so we can regulate you." The result was the individual mandate—Congress' first literally inescapable law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Mellor knows this, I know this, most people here know this-- heck, even dead slave-owning white guys knew this. But guess who doesn't know this?
Bi or want to find people having the same sexual orientation?---datebi*cO'm--- is a safe and free site for you.
Last time I checked I'm not a state so Congress shouldn't be able regulate me.
Yeah, wasn't that amendment aimed at the States, not at individuals within those states? Someone help me out here. How could individual citizens 'erect' trade barriers?
Um.....I think....Maybe....
Nope can't figure out how I could erect a trade barrier.
I still haven't received any subscription requests for my Broccoli Recipe Network Newsletter.
*sad face*
I really don't understand why the commerce clause isn't taken to mean just what it says about congress being able to regulate commerce among the several states. Isn't it plainly obvious this means congress is an arbitrator between state governments, and that's all? They can step in when Oklahoma imposes special taxes on goods from Texas, for example, but it's none of their damn business if an Ohio wheat farmer wants to grow some extra wheat to feed his livestock. Now, I know certain factions want it to be read that way, but holy cow it pisses me off that the plain meaning is blatantly ignored.
^^^THIS^^^
Everytime someone calls it the "Commerce Clause" instead of the "Interstate Commerce Clause", they kick our chances of seeing Wickard and Raich overturned right in the nads.
This shit should be in the libertarian style guide.