“No Man’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session”.

- attributed to NY State Judge Gideon Tucker

Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Constitutionality of ObamaCare

The Wall Street Journal's weekend interview in this past Saturday's edition was with noted conservative Constitutional law scholar Randy Barnett.

Barnett gave a thorough explanation of his detailed views of the merits and likelihood of success of the several states' lawsuit against ObamaCare.

But what drew my attention were these passages from Barnett,

"When the Constitution was written, Mr. Barnett says, commerce was understood to mean "trade in things...goods...The Commerce Clause was really put there, essentially, to create a free-trade zone for the United States," not to give Congress power over all economic activity."

And, near the interview's end,

"Will his argument prevail? "If I want to bet actual money, I'll always bet the court upholds anything Congress does," Mr Barnett says."

When I read this, I realized that I believe our country has no hope for anything resembling an America like the one I knew growing up, without a Constitutional Convention.

Mr. Barnett, a serious conservative and champion of the original Constitution and individual liberty, believes that the Supreme Court will typically simply rubber stamp any foolish, illegal and unconstitutional law Congress sees fit to pass.

When someone like Barnett sees no hope for respect for the Constitution from Congress, it's time to rewrite and amend the Constitution to force it to.

At a minimum, to my earlier post on ten things I'd change in the Constitution, I'd now add a more specific rewrite of the Commerce Clause which also struck down and obliterated existing case law on the subject.

It appears that the Commerce Clause, as liberally interpreted by the Supreme Court, has become the first punch in a 1-2 combination that has essentially stripped the States of their significant powers. The next punch after the Commerce Clause is the Supremacy argument, which states that where the federal and a state government clash, federal law and rule trumps.

If we can't trust our courts to adhere to the Constitution, then we need to amend the Constitution to prohibit those rulings we've already seen the federal courts make in favor of the federal government, and, then, limit the courts, as well.

There appears to be no other way now to restore the limited government which the Framers designed in the Constitution.

No comments: