(Cross posted from HellcatRepublican.com.)

In the debate about the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the liberals have completely lost it. Here is an excerpt from a Newsmax article.

Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat and a key author of the Senate bill, said Congress has the power to regulate health insurance because it’s economic activity and health insurers sell their products nationally or regionally. He said that means it’s subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

Mr. Baucus pointed to a series of law professors who have concluded the Supreme Court has widened the definition of Congress’ powers to include mandating insurance coverage.

Grrrrrr. This gets my panties all up in wad.

The Founders never intended for the federal government to be running a socialized medicine business. They explicitly spelled out in the Tenth Amendment that powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution may not be exercised by the federal government. The Commerce Clause was not intended to give the federal government power to regulate any and all businesses just because business transactions occurred across state lines. In fact, the Founders made it very clear that that was not the intent of the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause was intended to apply to interstate and international financial relationships, meaning such things as import and export taxes, product subsidies and restrictions, and the use and abuse of state ownership of useful natural vehicles of commerce such as harbors and waterways. If anything, the Commerce Clause was intended to protect free trade. In fact, “commerce” during the constitutional convention was almost always used in reference to Atlantic Ocean trade, not to land based trade. In the rare instance where “commerce” referred to land based trade, it was used in reference to trade across the national border with Canada. The Commerce clause has nothing to do with private commercial trade. It was not intended to give the federal government carte blanche to regulate and therefore control all business that trade across state borders. The Commerce Clause was intended to ensure free and equitable trade. It was not intended to be a device for creating a fascist America.

For more information on the intent of the Founders and the Commerce Clause, I recommend Calvin H. Johnson’s THE PANDA’S THUMB: THE MODEST AND MERCANTILIST ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. This article has good information about the intent of the clause, but the conclusion Johnson arrives at at the end contradicts the Tenth Amendment and is fallacious. Johnson next to last paragraph begins “The Founders’ true intent should not be binding on us, among other reasons, because their most intense meanings were focused on the short term and on programs that would be adopted or abandoned in short order.” He says that the Founder’s true intent should not be binding on us. What a moron. If there were problems with the writing in the Constitution, the Constitution should be amended, not simply “reinterpreted” by judges.

In the Newsmax article, Senator Bauchus refers to the opinions of certain university professors. Just because a group of university professors claim something is true doesn’t mean it’s true.

The professors claim that “the Supreme Court has widened the definition of Congress’ powers to include mandating insurance coverage.” Does this make you angry? It should. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to “widen” Congress’ powers. The powers of the federal government are spelled out in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from having powers not spelled out in the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot usurp the Consitution by “widening” definitions. This kind of behavior is called a judicial coup. If done intentionally is a serious crime.

The current fascist Senators may be American’s by nationality, but they sure as hell aren’t American’s by ideology or character.

Stumble it!