U.S. v. Lopez and Health Care

I do not believe that the Supreme Court of these United States will allow the health care law to pass scrutiny and be deemed Constitutional. Initially, the constitutional argument focused on the requirement that everyone obtain health insurance. The federal government has Constitutionally-limited power. Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically authorizes it to do and requiring people to have health insurance is not one of their enumerated powers. But in the past the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted certain congressional powers extremely broadly – such as finding an ‘individual’s right to privacy’, so who knows what their ruling might be.

What does the Constitution say Congress has the right to do under the umbrella of Interstate Commerce – which is what the Dems are going to use as Constitutional authority granted to them to run a national health care system?

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;

Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).

In the Supreme Court ruling in The United States v. Lopez in 1995 new limits were placed on Congress’ commerce power. A 12th grade high school student brought a concealed .38 revolver and bullets to school and was confronted by school officials. He admitted to having the gun and was charged with violating Congress’ Gun Free School Zones Act. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that ‘the Act was unconstitutional on the basis that the Gun Free law was beyond the power of Congress to regulate control over our public schools.’

The government’s principal argument was that someone with a firearm in a school would lead to violent crime, which would affect general economic conditions, causes damage and creates expense, and raises insurance costs all of which are spread throughout the economy. The government also argued that the presence of firearms would scare the students, inhibit learning, and would keep tourists from travelling ‘Interstate’ to the area the school was in which would weaken the nation’s economic health.

The Supreme Court found that supporting the government in this matter would open the doors to the federal government regulating ANY activity despite its connection to interstate commerce. What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person’s economic productivity? Or, as with the current health care bill, would allow Congress to interfere with an individual’s right to choose how they want to take care of their own health care.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the U.S. v Lopez argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general ‘police power’ over the entire nation.