Federal judges are taking sides in the national health care debate much like the members of Congress did when they passed the landmark bill.
Three judges have now ruled in favor of the bill. Two are opposed. Those opposed make much more sense than the others. This is what is wrong with activist judes - legislating from the bench. Judges are now adding words to the Constitution that just aren't there. They are adding intent that just isn't there.
Understanding the Constitution is not hard. Any 4th or 5th grader can understand it well enough to pass a test on it, yet we would be lead to believe that only a very few constitutional scholars in this country have the smarts to really interpret its vast and hidden meaning. Baloney!
The Constitution, as the Declaration of Independence, was written for the common man (and woman). It was written for public consumption as a document to be read in the public square by the town crier.
Now for the current injustice. A DC federal judge, Gladys Kessler, rejected the argument that the bill is unconstitutional in a suit filed by a group of individuals represented by the American Center for Law and Justice.
For the record, all three judges finding that the bill is constitutional were appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton.
Kessler, in a 64-page opinion, sided with government that Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce is so broad it can require people to buy a commercial product such as health insurance. Why stop here? Why not have Congress regulate that only Coca Cola can be sold or that everyone must drink it - "the official soft drink of America"? Why not an official car, radio station. running shoe?
She can say what she wants. Congress has no such sweeping power. It's not in the Constitution.
Here's what's in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 - "(The Congress shall have the Power) to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."
It's quite clear. No far reaching power - very specific. So how is health care a dispute "among the several States"? Obviously it isn't.
Let's hope than when this case gets to the Supreme Court that the 9 of them can at least the Constitution and not see words that aren't there.
───
For more information on my coaching and educational programs and services, visit my website stevehoffacker.com, or go to my other blog homesalesinsights.com for additional sales tips, insights, and commentary. Listen to my free podcast messages at Steve Hoffacker's Happenings.
Steve Hoffacker - Consultant, Coach, Author, Blogger, Photographer, Motivator, Teacher, & Strategist - for Realtors, Real Estate Sales Professionals, Home Builders, New Home Salespeople, Entrepreneurs, Small Business Owners, and Independent Sales Representatives.
© Steve Hoffacker, 2011. All Rights Reserved.