Options
Print
14 Comments
Post a Comment
Email
The Judge Says 'No'
· Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Were the people of our nation wise and generous enough to endow me with the presidency, I would proceed to the enactment of major reforms. I would immediately and forthwith restore Southwest Conference football. I would abolish Daylight Savings Time and the designated hitter rule. I would call on the whole wide world to restore the horse cavalry and put away every weapon invented since 1815.
Of course, it wouldn't be constitutional under the Constitution as presently written -- a minor point to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi -- but not -- praise the Lord! -- to U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson (of Richmond, Va.), who has rendered a decision remarkable for common sense. Not many decisions handed down by federal judges are remarkable in this way, but Hudson's is. He says the Constitution forbids Congress to require/force/compel/coerce/press-gang citizens into buying health insurance.
Judge Hudson squints at the Constitution, likewise at all reported decisions from the federal appellate courts. He can't find anything authorizing Congress to require/force, etc., the doing of a deed the citizen may in fact oppose.
He thinks, in other words, the federal government can't do anything it chooses to do. Did you ever!
The new federal health care scheme, conventionally called Obamacare, is premised on the government's right, as the government sees it, to turn the existing health care arrangement inside out and decree a new system -- as Kublai Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome.
The goodness or badness of the federal approach is not the issue here -- not in the abstract terms of would-it-work. The issue is, has Congress the constitutional power to do all this? That's to say, without an amendment conferring that power. Judge Hudson says no.
He's almost certainly right. Being right in constitutional construction, together with two bucks, will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. For decades -- specifically, since the late New Deal -- the federal courts have stretched the constitutional language far enough to cover practically anything enacted by Congress. To Judge Hudson, the language seems badly overstretched. He knows the Supreme Court will have the final say. Nonetheless, his 42-page decision sets the stage for contemplation of the lassitude, the laziness, with which our rulers in Washington contemplate language intended not to expand but rather to restrain their powers.
Hudson, hearing the case, asked why an order to buy health insurance isn't like an order to eat asparagus. Both could be construed as " beneficial" to us, couldn't they? Then why can't you do it?
For the same reason, I couldn't reconstitute the Southwest Conference football, boon though it would be to fans that don't understand (as I do!) how good it would be for them. Neither I nor anyone else has power of the sort necessary to get the job down. Free speech, yes. Coercive power -- the power of the handcuff, shackle and leg iron -- no.
The Constitution carefully, prudently defines what the federal government may do. After deleterious experience with a British crown and Parliament desirous of doing "good things" for the colonies, irrespective of colonial preferences, the Founding Fathers wanted raw power checked and restrained. They couldn't anticipate every possible power grab that the future might inspire, but knowing human nature as they knew it, they anticipated greed and overreach would march with valor and kindness.
The present Congress -- soon to lose further sway over us, praise Jupiter -- doesn't worry about such trifles as proper, duly delegated authority. It wants results, actions and deeds. To say thus-and-so should be is to justify the act of putting thus-and-so in place.
Then there's Judge Hudson, one of three federal judges thus far to rule on Obamacare. The other two said to Congress fine, go head, tell the peasants what to buy, how much to pay, etc. Judge Hudson says, in essence, such notions contract rather than expand liberty. "Urge," in other words, isn't the same thing as "do it, dammit." What a great thing to hear such good sense from a federal judge's mouth. Let us savor the unaccustomed flavor while it lasts.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Navigation
Subscribe
Author Cal Thomas: "The Patriot interprets current issues in the conservative context of history." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Navigation
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
Sam
"He says the Constitution forbids Congress to require/force/compel/coerce/press-gang citizens into buying health insurance."
Imagine that. And a single federal judge, at that.
The reid/pelosi/soetoro cabal will have us all living under their soviet style communism in no time. Too bad most people are either too stupid or lazy to care - but they sure will eventually.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 7:25:56 AM
One VA Patriot
What Sam said.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 7:56:53 AM
Mick
George Allan, former governor of Virginia, said it in USA Today very clearly: "If the federal government has the power to tell you that you must buy health insurance, then the federal government has the power to force Americans to purchase anything".
Americans, kiss your economic freedom good-bye forever. Your administration, congress and the judiciary have already stolen it right out from under you.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 8:20:55 AM
Brian
May Judge Hudson not be the last to rule against this monstrosity. But, seriously? One out of three judges thinks this goes too far? And why is this even going through the lower courts? The Constitution specifically states that the Supreme Court has prime jurisdiction on any case involving the United States or the individual states.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 12:33:52 PM
Also Sam
The Constitution goes a step further than providing bounds on the scope and scale of the federal government, it gifts us citizens with the tools necessary to stand up should overzealous rulers forget the oath that they took upon entering office.
We have the right to tell our leaders that we do not want the goods they are trying to sell. If they fail to hear us, we have the right to put them and their misdirected ambitions back out on the street. Unfortunately, with the institution of literally hundreds of bureaucracies and thousands of appointed, not elected, officials, we definitely have our work cut out for us when it comes to restoring liberty.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 12:39:37 PM
Ray Bradley
Brian's correct. Give him an "A" in Constitutional law. Article III, Section 2 states "The judicial Power shall extend..... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party;" Like Brian, I don't understand why the issue is even in the lower courts.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 12:56:01 PM
Mike
If it is unconstitutional to force one to buy health insurance, then certainly it is also unconstitutional to force hospitals and emergency rooms to "help" or operate on someone who chooses not to have coverage when there is an emergency and they don't have cash to pay for it. Right-Wingers can't have it both ways. One of the reasons it is mandated (like auto insurace) is because too many choose not to have it, and then expect to be treated when they are sick and can't afford it. Then the rest of us have to pay the bill anyway.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 12:58:57 PM
Pamela Heckel
Brian and Ray,
ditto, then, for the Arizona illegal immigration bill and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" right? Who's paying the lawyers in these lower courts? I want a refund!
Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:46:15 PM
Caseace
Don't be like Mike.
Auto insurance is required by state law not federal and if you don't have a car you don't have to buy car insurance. The Constitution does NOT require ERs or hospitals to provide coverage either, again that authority comes from the states as provided by the Constitution which intended to LIMIT federal power, while giving states MORE power to rein in oppressive central rulers. Like so many Left-Wingers your arguments are superficial at best, but heartfelt I'm sure.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 3:10:56 PM
Denny
Mike - your point is well taken. Our point is we don't want the federal government in ANY business, not health care, not insurance, not education, nor anything else outside their Constitutional limits.
For those like you who want the federal government to "do something", they will, whether it works or not, no matter how much it cost, and no matter which of your personal freedoms they have to deny to get it done. You, boy, haven't seen anything yet.
Posted December 14, 2010 at 8:03:07 PM
Mike
Don't be like Caseace-
Under the current "private, for profit" system we have millions who are uninsured due to the fact that it is unaffordable. We are the only country in the top 30 richest countries with for profit healthcare which has made the costs too expensive. Doing nothing (which you are suggesting) will cause more and more people to go without in the years to come. I, and many others, would prefer to live in a society where healthcare is not a privelege.
Posted December 15, 2010 at 8:20:44 AM
comdude
I can haz Southwest Conference football?
As long as I'm not required to sign up for the Southwest Conference football cable sports network channel.
I like this judge.
Posted December 15, 2010 at 9:19:10 AM
Frank E.
12/17/10
Let us hope the Supreme Court remembers the
constitutional limits on government.the same as
lower court Judge hudson does.The 1.25 payback
ADD-ON by the DEMORATS PARTY of TREASON.It seems
They still haven't learned anything by November
SHLACKING.
Posted December 17, 2010 at 6:27:10 PM
Andy
This judge is worthy of the title.
An example that should be that set by all judges.
Posted December 19, 2010 at 1:13:07 AM