Why is Obamacare unconstitutional?
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 | Uncategorized | No Comments
If you are a plaintiff on the Obamacare lawsuit, you’ve probably been asked why Obamacare is unconstitutional. So, I wanted to share a couple illustrations that explain why Obamacare is unconstitutional.
In 1919, the regulation of a drug – alcohol – required a Constitutional amendment to be ratified by the States. Yet, today we have the FDA which regulates every “prescription” drug and the DEA which regulates every “illegal” drug. We even have a “Drug Czar” on the President’s cabinet. So how did we go from requiring a Constitutional amendment to regulate just one drug, to multiple Federal agencies that regulate drugs without any Constitutional amendment whatsoever? The answer is that the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedent destroyed the limitations placed upon the Federal Government by our Founding Fathers.
During the presidency of FDR, the Supreme Court drastically changed the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to empower Congress to regulate Commerce within the States. For the prior 150 years, the Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce clause to prevent unfair competition between the States. For the past 73 years, Congress has viewed the precedent from the FDR court as Constitutional authority to regulate whatever they please. They know that the courts will not overturn legislation in light of the 1937 precedent. This reasoning, however, holds all of America captive to the decision of a handful of men from the 1930’s. Our government is no longer guided by our founding document, the Constitution.
One of the arguments I will be making in this case is that the FDR court got it wrong and the past 70+ years of American history is the proof. I am going to ask the court to look at the original intent of the Constitution, in its entirety, and answer the question, “How can the current interpretation of the Commerce clause be correct if it negates the purpose of the Constitution, to limit the power of the Federal government, and specifically negates the 10th Amendment?” One of the most basic canons of legal interpretation is that one phrase within a document cannot be interpreted in such a way as to negate the purpose of the entire document.
So that leads us to a discussion of the purpose of the Constitution, which is to preserve our God given rights and provide for the impartial rule of law. It does this by setting up how the United States is supposed to operate. The Constitution deals with very few issues specifically because the Framers intended that most issues would be handled by the States or Individuals (see the 10th Amendment). The figure to the left illustrates how our founders envisioned the relationship between the federal government, the states, and the people. The pyramid represents the amount of authority that each group should have. Individuals should have the most authority, which they delegate a portion of to the State, to handle issues they collectively agree are best handled at the state level. The State then delegates some of its authority to the Fed to handle issues like coining money, providing for the common defense and controlling immigration. Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution lists the delegated authorities given to Congress.
I have read the Constitution many times and still have not found “Health Care” in Article 1 of Section 8. So under another canon of legal interpretation, “Plain Meaning”, the Constitution clearly intended the 10th Amendment to leave “Health Care” to the States or to the People. The 10th Amendment reads “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.” A plain meaning interpretation leads to the clear conclusion that the Constitution never intended the Federal government to regulate Health Care. History proves this to be true. The United States didn’t have Federal health care regulations until the post FDR court era, as we illustrated with the Constitutional amendment required to regulate alcohol.
The figure to the right I hope illustrates how critical this challenge to Obamacare is. The erroneous Commerce clause interpretation has literally turned our Constitution on its head. Instead of authority deriving from the people and then being delegated to the State and then the Fed, we now wake up to news nearly every morning telling us how a recent decision on the Federal level will affect every citizen. 535 people in Congress and one person in the White House decide how the rest of us, more than 300 million people, will live. Using the illustration of the pyramid, it is easy to see how unstable and unsustainable the way we currently operate is.
This is why I framed the legal arguments of this case to require the court to re-evaluate current precedent in light of the original intent of the Constitution. We need to do more than just over turn Obamacare as the State lawsuits attempt to do. That would be a great victory, however with current legal precedent, it would be a short lived victory. We must deal with the root of the problem, the incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. With the help of the many learned and experienced Constitutional attorneys that have volunteered their assistance, we have an excellent chance of turning this pyramid right side up.
Expect to see a case update in the next few days. In the meantime, please let everyone you know that they can join the lawsuit for a onetime cost of just $10. Every American that joins brings more media attention to our cause, and makes it more difficult for the courts to simply dismiss our case. It is my honor to represent you. With your help we will turn our country around.
In Liberty,
Van