Several months ago, I wrote a blog post titled, “Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything.” Whenever politicians are questioned about their totalitarian actions and asked what gives them the power to commence such actions, they have one standard response: the interstate commerce clause. This is the established response of politicians and their apologists, and it replaces what would otherwise be no response. This has become a big joke that’s being questioned by a whole lot of keen folks. Here’s another such event described in a recent article on CNSNews:
The day after the House approved the health care bill, a reporter asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the lawsuits some states were threatening against the legislation on the grounds that the provision forcing all Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.
“I think there’s pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,” Gibbs said, without offering any substantive explanation.
Later in the briefing, another reporter pressed Gibbs on the question. “You say there’s established law, established precedent,” said the reporter. “On what? What is it? What is the established precedent?”
“On the regulation of interstate commerce,” said Gibbs.
One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.
Here is more from the Judge on the commerce clause.
Now see this excellent, short commentary from Stephan Kinsella on the commerce clause and its intentions. Also note the Jeffrey Rogers Hummel article he points to — “The Constitution as a Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists.”10:36 am on March 28, 2010 Email Karen De Coster