The Growing Revolution Against Obamacare

As I write this, sixteen states (led by Florida) have either joined a lawsuit against President Obama's health care legislation, or are initiating their own legal action against the bill. In some cases, the state attorney generals are leading the fight. In Arizona's case, the state's attorney general (a Democrat) refused the governor's order to join the suit, so the governor (a Republican) went to the state legislature, asked for the power to join the suit, got it, and went around her own attorney general. It will get uglier.

And here I was thinking that this bill was so popular.

Sixteen states? With more to come? Someone here has acted without having derived their just powers from the consent of the governed (thanks, Thomas Jefferson), and I'm guessing it was the feds.

I'm also guessing that more states will choose to jump on this particular bandwagon. Every state that takes action is a direct rebuke to any claims that "Obamacare" is a popular bill that reflects the will of the people. Of course, there will be a lot of political theater. However, that is not my primary interest in this upcoming action.

The issue is federal authority. Does your government have the authority to make you purchase something against your will?

A plain reading of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would seem to say "no."

The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 ("The Commerce Clause") of the U.S. Constitution: "(The government shall have power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; "

There are two issues here: the limits of federal government in the 10th Amendment and what can be implied by the term "regulate" in the Commerce Clause. It would be very easy to fall into the kind of "framer's intent" versus "living document" argument that seems to categorize most Constitutional debates, but that is not my intent. In fact, I believe that this is not an either/or issue, but a both/and issue.

Remember, the founding fathers found fault with the government of England for what appears to be the same reason sixteen states are now going to court: the abuse of federal power and the usurpation of individual liberty. Whether one argues intent or living document, the whole point of the Constitution was to set up a government with limited powers, a system of checks and balances that existed to prevent both the particular branches of government and government as a whole from exceeding the authority granted it by the people of the nation.

With the passage of the new health care legislation, the American people will be forced by the government to purchase a product, and to subsidize the purchase of that product by others unable to do so by themselves. If there is a limit on government anywhere in there, I'm missing it. Remember, health insurance is a product. Insurance companies will directly profit as a result of this. What's to stop the government from forcing individuals to purchase any other product?

After all, the government does have quite a bit invested in General Motors...but I digress.

The better part will be the argument over the Commerce Clause. I can't wait for lawyers on both sides to get their hands on the word "regulate," but somehow they will take a plain-spoken word and make it something that you and I couldn't possibly understand.

Here's how the word "regulate" works. Imagine a faucet. You turn the spigot, and water comes out. You turn the spigot more, and more water comes out. You turn the spigot the opposite way, and no water comes out. That's regulation. The faucet regulates the flow of water.

In the same way, the government has the authority to regulate the flow of commerce. It can allow commerce to flourish almost without restraint, or it can slow commerce to a trickle (the sale of dangerous or explosive chemicals and compounds) or even a halt (child pornography, for example). There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can force anyone to trade or buy, because the federal government does not produce the commerce.

Again, faucets do not produce the water, they only regulate the water. Our government was not intended to produce the commerce, but to regulate the commerce.

The issue is as plain as this: replace the words "health care insurance" with "health club membership." Then read the following with a straight face: the federal government requires all U.S. citizens to purchase health club membership, and will subsidize the memberships of over 30 million poor Americans unable to purchase their own. Any states that fail to implement this new legislation will be denied all Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and any individuals who fail to purchase health club membership will be deemed criminal and fined.

Did I mention that the fine would be called a "penalty" and taken out of your tax refund by the IRS?

Count me in as a member of the growing revolution against Obamacare.