ObamaCare Problematic Theory
ObamaCare Problematic Theory
Interstate Commerce — The Premise
Kevin A. Sensenig | August 31, 2014 | Updated September 12, 2014
The Text Of The Commerce Directive (States, Foreign Nations, Indian Tribes)
Article 1. Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power [—] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Regulate Interstate Commerce
Interstate commerce.
company, individual or company, inventory, shipping, marketing, sales, customer feedback, warranties, transaction, product, support, returns
It’s all that.
Why doesn’t the government then have the power to regulate all of this? It does.
There are 3 points.
First, the term regulate is a meaningful term, but a minimal one, and a dynamic one that is to permit and facilitate all of this. To specify the currency used for transactions. To support and define straightforward transactions. To make sure warranties are fulfilled where necessary and where they are put in place. To make sure that roads and other such means of transportation support are available. These are what is meant by “to regulate” here.
Second, “to regulate” is a careful term.
Third, the commerce comes from the company and individual, and/or the state. This is fundamental.
It does not come from the federal government.
Further Points On The Directive (As It’s Enumerated, And An Enumerated Power)
( The basis is the previous section. This is an enhancement. )
Furthermore, this third point is strengthened by the role defined for such “to regulate” Commerce among the several states. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is to be seen that Commerce is Commerce capital-C, Commerce as a “thing”, to be so considered. (You can also consider it as noumenon, and then re-apply it.) Note then the direct statement, the directive, the enumerated (in 2 ways) — "Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” [Article 1, Section 8]. Here we see clearly that Congress is not specifying for the foreign Nations, the several States (and one could infer the companies or States), or the Indian Tribes what products they’re supposed to be setting forth. (They [the Framers] even spell it out — it’s Commerce (a thing) _among_ the several States, and so forth. That is entities (imagined) within the several States (form), or the States themselves. It is not a noun with an adjective, bringing to mind the interstate highway system (the pavement itself). It is form, relationship, and activity or action.)
That is, the Commerce comes from within the States, the foreign Nations, and the Indian Tribes.
All Of This And ObamaCare
The third point in "Regulate Interstate Commerce”
“Third, the commerce comes from the company and individual. This is fundamental.”
“It does not come from the federal government.”
means that not only are the ObamaCare specifications for product (the health insurance) unConstitutional, the ObamaCare website itself is unConstitutional, as it is a federal product itself, and federal Commerce (that is, ObamaCare insurance is a product meant to be sold on the market, and the website is a part of the Commerce).
It is not a direct resource (as in welfare, which is fine, as far as I can tell). It is a product — and furthermore it is a product that is mandated to be purchased (or given preemptory status as being subsidized, as opposed to existing continuing health insurance products (plans) on the market, within each state).
Once a market has been established, does Congress or the federal government have the power to enforce standards, as in health care? Perhaps — certain types of standards for patient protection of records would be permitted. (This pertains to the transaction layer.)
[ You could bicker with Kagan in her own terms on this one: the Constitution has defined for the federal government (the Congress and any laws passed by it and signed by the President, and any entities thereof) the role of the Commerce aggregate — it belongs to the States, the foreign Nations, and the Indian Tribes. ]
Context (ObamaCare Problematic Theory)
For the previous papers on the problematic theory of ObamaCare, including at-will regulation at its premise, see the following:
ObamaCare Problematic Theory