One of the features of the health reform legislation in Congress is the individual mandate that requires everyone to have insurance. The Senate bill justifies it by discussing the impact insurance has on the economy and the risk the uninsured have on the industry. Therefore the Senate bill justifies it through the commerce clause of the Constitution. But is this right? Can the Federal Government order you to buy a product because your failure to buy it can affect interstate commerce? I would argue no.
Article 1 section 8 says, "The Congress shall have power, To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The primary reason behind giving the Federal Government power to regulate commerce among the several states was to protect exporting states from other states their products would have to pass through in order to reach foreign or domestic markets. James Madison provided a cursory review of it in Federalist Paper Number 42. "A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruption of the public tranquility." So, the purpose of the power was to protect the goods of other states when they cross over state lines from the power of other states so as to maintain public tranquility. No where in that power does it give the Federal Government the power to force you to buy a product to maintain that tranquility.
If the Federal Government were to have the power to order you to buy a product, consider what this would mean to liberty. The health reform legislation requires that you purchase minimum insurance where they will decide what that minimum is. If you do not purchase that insurance, then you will be subject to fines by the IRS. Fail to pay the fine, and you will be subject to sanctions from the IRS, such as garnished wages, or lose of property, you could possibly even go to jail. This is an abuse of power by the Federal Government.
If the Federal Government has this power, what is to limit them from telling you that you need to buy something else because failure to do so would negatively impact interstate commerce. Consider the bail out of the auto manufacturers. Could the Federal Government order you to go and buy a car made by General Motors, in order to save the company and other companies contracted with General Motors. Let's take it back to insurance, will they be able to regulate what you eat, or how much you exercise because they argue that failure to eat right and exercise could impact interstate commerce? If the commerce clause gives the Federal Government such authority, what does that do to our freedom when the Federal Government has the authority to order us about without limit.
The commerce clause does not give the Federal Government the authority to order you to engage in a commercial transaction. They may create the conditions to encourage you to engage in a commercial transaction, but can't make you do it. That is a decision you must make for yourself, and if you don't want to make that decision, that is your right. This is a nation founded on the principles of freedom and individual liberty. I believe that health insurance reform in its present form, threatens those freedoms and liberty.
Extremus
No comments:
Post a Comment