Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Conservative consolation prize


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,629 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:14 PM

Good opinion piece by George Will that I agree with. I am not sure it will play out how he seems to think it will, but I hope so. Trying to use the commerce clause to justify health care was quite a stretch anyway and it got shot down as it should have.


Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts jr has served this cause.

The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.


The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. . . . The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”


By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”



Best of both worlds maybe. More people will have access to healthcare, without stretching the commerce clause into infinity.

I also have to wonder if the administration planned it this way. No way in hell this passes if they call it a tax. It is a tax of course, and Roberts recognized it as such, but Obama managed to get it thru congress by calling it something else. Of course, I seriously doubt he knew that how Roberts would vote. So I doubt he really planned it this way (although if he did, he is the most brilliant politician since FDR).

#2 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:38 PM

the biggest consolation prize for republicans is that they got the mandate they wanted and they can use it against obama


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com