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.
Newt just fired across Obama's bow about his admininstration NOT following the DMA in violation of the constitution....WHEEEEE! Newt's talking impeachment!!!! I'd be please with a 1 term/1 trick pony
Amen Steve! If the unconstitutionality of obamacare isn't stop, there is NOTHING that the politicians won't force us to buy...all for our "own good" of course!
Go Newt Go!! Luv the guy! He has real world answers for our big problems.
The fact that Obama is not enforcing several laws on the books should be grounds for the high court to step in and put their foot down.
Steve
What's happening with some of the judges is a big time over reach.
Good luck and success.
Lou Ludwig
Wallace,
We can't impeach him and he knows it. That's why he picked Biden. :)
Steve
Georgia,
These judges who were never elected get to write law with no debate, no public scrutiny, and no accountability. That was never intended. :)
Steve
Mike,
The Attorney General definitely needs to be removed from office by thje Senate. :)
Steve
Lou,
They report to no one, and it has gone to their heads. :)
Steve
Some of these judges have determined that it is up to them to create a Constitution instead of interpret the thing. They must be able to see invisible ink that the rest of us cannot.
Congratulations Steve- this post is now featured in the Tea Party group of AR.
Kevin,
I agrere, but I also think that word "interpret" is a troublesome word. That's what they think they are doing when they insert their own own opinions and experiences. I think of it more as a referee. Here are the rules. Did you follow them? :)
Steve
Kevin,
Thanks for the feature. :)
Steve
I disagree with you Congress does have that right. Our right is to vote them out or back in office. It's real simple!
Michael,
Yes we have the right to retain them, but no they have to right to pass health care. The Constitution is intentionally very specific and very narrow for Congress - only what it says. There is nothing implied. :)
Steve
The political football is being passed from one end of the country to another. These judges, regardless of their decisions are making decisions based on politics. They all know and we must understand, this is just to slow down the final case being brought to the Supreme Court. This is nothing more than a filibuster from the judical branch.
And as to DMA, that is major but not the biggest decision in our lifetimes that Presidents have made that ignore the Constitution. how about the defense of our borders and going to war without a congressional vote?
Dale,
Excellent points. Thank you. :)
Steve
This administration sees the Constitution as an a la carte menue * they can enforce what they WANT and not enforce what they do NOT want. Holder won't prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation because " it demeans HIS people"
Wallace,
Eric Holder is a disgrace to his oath and the position. :)
Steve