‘Commerce Clause’ Totalitarians
By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | (Congress shall have the power: ) "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" — Article 1, Section 8, United States Constitution
Take a good, long look at the above "commerce clause," my fellow Americans. As far as the American left is concerned, it is the vehicle by which tyranny can imposed on the citizenry of the United States. Too strong a contention? Not at all. Our Democratically- controlled Congress has made it clear that "commerce" is a term so flexible it can be "regulated" — even when it literally doesn't exist.
That is the essence of their contention with regard to the clause in the health care bill requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, or risk a fine or prosecution for refusing to do so. Make no mistake: Congress is telling Americans that we are required to engage in commerce, whether we like or not — simply because we exist. And the fundamental question Americans should be pondering as a result, is this: if Congress can force you to engage in a particular activity against your will, if they can literally eliminate the freedom to choose not to engage in commerce, what is it they can't regulate?
Answer: absolutely nothing — and that is the essence of tyranny.
Despite liberal ridicule over the exchange, I don't believe it was any accident that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan played dodgeball with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) when he asked whether Congress has the power to regulate what Americans eat. For liberals, there are no words that cannot be "interpreted" to mean whatever liberals want them to mean. For them the Constitution itself is a "living" document, not in the sense that it is still the law of the land after 234 years, but in the sense that it can be twisted to mean whatever five Supreme Court Justices decide.
This is utter nonsense and a complete mockery of American history. In 1787, 55 delegates representing the various states met in Philadelphia to work on creating a federal republic. It them four months of debating, arguing, cajoling and compromising to come up with the exact language contained in the Constitution. There wasn't a single word included (or not included, as in the effort to keep the word "slavery" out) that wasn't thoroughly vetted by those delegates.
Liberals apparently consider that historical reality largely inconsequential. And that's when they're citing the Constitution in the first place. On more than one occasion, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court has decided that "foreign law" can be used as a "guideline" for rendering decisions — or as a basis for discovering what the Constitution "really" means.
Such "flexibility" renders the Constitution meaningless — which is precisely the point. In that context, it is no longer astounding to a substantial number of Americans that the Court's recent decision upholding the right to bear arms was yet another 5-4 vote. Yet consider the Constitutional language those four jurists were willing to ignore in order to reach their desired destination:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How does a liberal Justice get around that clause? Justice Stephen G. Breyer claimed the court "was restricting state and local efforts from designing gun-control laws that both fit their particular circumstances and save lives." His dissent: "In a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people? (read the states) What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"
Taking power from the people, Mr. Breyer? Taking power from do-gooder representatives whose choose mangle the Constitution to suit their anti-gun ideology is more like it. And hypocritically speaking, the Court had no problem "restricting state and local efforts" to "save lives" when they imposed Roe v. Wade on the nation in 1973.
Back to the commerce clause. At some point, the Supreme Court will have to decide if the progressive movement will be able to impose their will on the entire electorate using a tortured definition of that clause. If they grant Congress that kind of power, it is not inaccurate to say we are finished as a free nation.
Over the top? Take the above decision. Guns are bought and sold. No need to bother with a "messy" Amendment process to change the Second Amendment. Just "commerce clause" it into oblivion — along with free speech, freedom of religion, or anything and everything in which human beings have some sort of interaction that can now be defined as "commerce" — by those with a knack for defining everything in terms of their worldview. A worldview so completely bankrupt, that non-activity, as in your right not to purchase health insurance can be deemed both activity — and criminal.
Any doubt whatsoever which side Elena Kagan would be on? Any doubt that the woman who once stated that "whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs" is anything other than a radical leftist?
Republicans stand no chance of stopping Kagan from being confirmed. But at some point they have to realize that symbolism is important: giving the most radical president in U.S. history an unfettered Supreme Court court appointment is exactly the kind of "business as usual" cynicism that turns off a ton of Americans. If Democrats can unanimously protect a Democratic president who was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, Republicans should be equally united against the lifetime appointment of an utterly inexperienced ideologue to the highest court in the nation.
That a plurality of Americans oppose Kagan's appointment (42% against vs. 36%, in favor, according to a Rassmussen Reports telephone survey) should help Republicans discover a "spine."
More importantly, it's about time Republicans realized that tradition, or the so-called "comity of compromise" with this administration and the Democrat party is as corrupt as making a deal with the devil. Either you stand for free enterprise, personal freedom, the Constitution as written and the limits that Constitution imposes on government, or you don't.
Are you listening, Scott Brown? A financial reform bill which completely ignores the carnage caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be a complete non-starter. Spare Americans the usual "it's mostly OK" garbage that always allows Republicans to "reach across the aisle" — to a party which never returns the favor.
You and the rest of your party have a golden opportunity to lead America back to its former greatness. It's about time you realized that a Democrat administration with a vice president who said "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession" or a Democrat House Speaker who said that unemployment checks "stimulate the economy" is group of clueless hacks who need to be fired, not accommodated.
After Kagan is confirmed, Obama will have put two Justices on the Supreme Court. Another one could be "strike three" for our democratic republic. The sooner Republicans re-capture the Senate — where they should unashamedly oppose any more radical additions to the court — the better. If SCOTUS in its present incarnation can only muster five votes for the Second Amendment, one more liberal Court appointee could fundamentally alter this nation forever. The Court is the last barrier — hopefully — between a Congress which has decided the commerce clause can be used as a rationale to regulate anything, and an American public clinging to the hope that the tide can be turned against these wannabe totalitarians.
Like Sonia Sotomayor before her, Elena Kagan proves one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt: elections matter.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment