Wickard Vs Filburn to be Overturned by ObamaCare...

polifrog

Roscoe Filburn chose not to engage in commerce but the US Supreme Court found that not engaging in commerce affects  interstate commerce due to the fact that such a decision removes demand on an product traded between the states.  In this case wheat.

Their decision was one that allowed the government the power to force individuals to engage in commerce.

Wiki:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.

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.

ObamaCare leans heavily on this false interpretation of the Commerce Clause, one made under  duress of the Great Depression.  Of course, the intent of the commerce clause was to promote, as much as possible, voluntary trade  among the states so as to make trade free flowing ... regular.  It was in that vein that the federal government was allowed the power to regulate trade --- to make trade  regular whether among the states or with other nations.

Is that what ObmaCare does?  Does ObamaCare promote free and voluntary trade or does it stifle trade in bureaucracy, fines, penalties and coercion? How is ObamaCare materially different from the barriers to trade that once promised our nation weakness? None.

It is likely that ObamaCare will be found unconstitutional, but ObamaCare's real impact will be more than political.  That real impact will be the direct  result of ObamaCare's overreach via its reliance on the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause will be reigned in by overturning Wickard Vs Filburn...





out

Health Care Reform - ObamaCare Infringing on Interstate Commerce...

polifrog



I am a spectator as ObamaCare marches through the courts and rightly so. I have no training and that in itself likely answers the following question.

Is ObamaCare not an infringement of interstate commerce? I realize it relies on the interstate commerce clause for constitutional muster. But it seems to me that ObamaCare is so extreme in its interpretation that it overshoots the intent of the interstate commerce clause and by its vary nature infringes on interstate commerce itself.

For example: If I choose to spend $20 dollars in SC (I live in NC) on cold medicine, but prior to that expenditure ObamaCare pries those dollars from my hands thereby limiting my choice to buy cold medicine in SC and thus engaging in interstate commerce, is ObamaCare not infringing on interstate commerce?

I don't see where this is any less tenuous an argument than the one our the administration is clinging to: that a citizen's choosing not to engage in economic activity affects interstate commerce. In fact, my argument seems far more reflective of the intent of the interstate commerce clause.

Another example. If, for instance, ObamaCare destroys the market for catastrophic health insurance (and it will as such insurance will not be considered when one attempts to meet their obligation for health insurance under ObamaCare), then the choices of US citizens will have been limited by government in just the same way as when an individual state interferes with commerce between the states if it were to limit commerce across state lines.


It seems to me that it does not matter whether a single state limits commerce across its boarders or the federal government limits commerce across all state lines --- the result is that interstate commerce is no longer free and regular.

I wonder. Does the interstate commerce clause only apply to laws passed by states that negatively impact commerce across state lines or does does it also apply to laws passed by the federal government that negatively impact commerce across state lines?


On the other hand, we can enjoy the joy of this wonderful video...





out