Federal Judge: Congress Can Regulate "Mental Activity" Under Commerce Clause

[MechAg94]

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/22/federal-judge-rules-congress-c

I couldn't locate any other links.  The headline grabbed my attention though.  It appears he is saying that interstate commerce activity and commerce decisions by individuals are the same, or something to that effect, so Obamacare is okay. 

I'm not sure I can put my finger on where this could go as a precedent, but it strikes me as going in the wrong direction.  It seems to be allowing the Feds much more broadly defined regulatory powers to regulate purchasing decisions of individuals.  I'm not sure what real limits would still exist if something like this was allowed.  I only thought they could do anything under the Commerce Clause, but a ruling like this could really open it up. 

Of course, I could be reading too much into this. 

[roo_ster]

Well, the opinion is posted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49359380/Judge-Kessler-Health-Care-Reform-Is-Constitutional

Excerpt:

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physicalactivity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making,there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter fallswithin Congress’s power. See Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at893 (describing the “activity/inactivity distinction” as an issueof first impression). However, this Court finds the distinction,which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. Itis pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice toforgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given theserious economic and health-related consequences to everyindividual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmativeaction, whether one decides to do something or not do something.They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is toignore reality.

I could not have made that up if I tried.  Un.  *expletive deleted*ing.  Believable.

[TommyGunn]

 
The "commerce clause" has been stretched.  Oh, it's not "broken" -- it's WAY BEYOND BROKEN.!!

.

It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

Great Caesar's Ghost.  I wonder if he knows what the definition of "is" is??

[AZRedhawk44]

The Dems and their pet courts will soon be trying to regulate voting results under the Commerce Clause.

 

[kgbsquirrel]

[sarcasm]
Your thoughts affect your decisions which affects your purchases which affects your intra-state commerce which affects interstate commerce, there-fore congress can legislate how you think! Never-mind that things like insurance are specifically forbidden from being sold across state lines, it's interstate commerce I say! Just like those damned pesky farmers who grow and sell produce without ever leaving their county, let alone their state, they're skewing the interstate markets!!
[/sarcasm]

Oh dear, I think I'm gonna be....

*runs over to the bushes and pukes up a lung, a kidney, half a liver, and 10 feet of small intestine*  

[PTK]

I need a moment, on this one. It IS 2011, right? Seems like 1984, but worse. This "federal judge" has basically said that anything we do, anything we don't do, anything we think, and anything we don't think is all part of the commerce clause.

So, if we choose not to buy something, we're affecting interstate commerce. If we buy something, we're affecting interstate commerce. If we think about choices, weighing one thing against another, we're affecting interstate commerce. If we don't think, we're affecting interstate commerce. 

[zxcvbob]

I need a moment, on this one. It IS 2011, right? Seems like 1984, but worse. This "federal judge" has basically said that anything we do, anything we don't do, anything we think, and anything we don't think is all part of the commerce clause.

So, if we choose not to buy something, we're affecting interstate commerce. If we buy something, we're affecting interstate commerce. If we think about choices, weighing one thing against another, we're affecting interstate commerce. If we don't think, we're affecting interstate commerce. 

The next step is taxing the money you save by not buying a new car (etc) as income.

[PTK]

Prepare to have a headache.

Just mentioned this issue to a friend of mine (pro-Obama, fine with socialism ("it's good for people!") and so forth)...

Her response?

All i see is that healthcare choice, as in choosing to have or not, is "activity".  That is not legislating opinions, it is a practical statement. Bowing out of healthcare would affect interstate commerce. it sounds like the states against were trying to dent the federal ruling via underhanded methods.

She... COMPLETELY missed the point, then turned it around. Dems...

[vaskidmark]

Correct me if my memory is fuzzy on this, but I seem to remember hearing about some folks on the East Coast who got all bent out of shape about being told by a government they had no voice in, what they could or could not buy, and what they must or must not buy.

As the story went, they were weak and disorganized and seen as mostly a bunch of rabble-rousers spewing a lot of hot air.  But in the end they got their act together and kicked the overbearing government in the butt and started something called The United States of America.

There are some other stories I recall, told by folks called "historians", that say republics are good for about 200-250 years then they collapse and have to be started all over again.

And there was the story by some European guy saying that folks who did not listen to the stories the "historians" told the folks would have to go on doing stuff over and over again the same old way.

Seems to me the only things that have changed are now the rabble-rousers are everywhere except on the East Coast, and nobody will need to cross an ocean to see the government they say they have no voice in.

Stamp Act.  Tax on tea, nails, cloth, ad nauseum.  Obamacare.  All sameee-same.

stay safe.

[MicroBalrog]

So... help me here, please.

Under this argument, everything you do, or not do, affects interstate commerce, is that correct?

If I understand correctly, this means that we have now reversed the understanding of what the role of government ought to be as compared to what was known under the Founding Fathers.

The Federalist Papers, as well as the Constitution as it was originally debated and written and amended, defines a government of specific and defined scope, which is further limited in the execution of its powers by certain outlined rights (first seen in the first 10 Amendments), with everybody seeing the rights so outlined as only a basic package of rights, and everybody understood that other rights existed beyond those enumerated directly. Thus we had the 9th and 10th Amendment, but the understanding itself predates them, and can be found in the various Founding-era documents.

But we have now gone and reversed course. If the legal argument is correct that every activity can be covered under interstate commerce, then what we have is a government of nearly unlimited scope, restrained only by those rights explicitly listed in the Constitution.

In short the Federal government can make you buy broccoli, but they cannot ban you from writing letters to your Representatives asking them to repeal the broccoli requirement. If you refuse to buy broccoli, you can expect a fair trial on the broccoli charges, and even a jury of your peers. Should Congress make broccoli-evasion a felony, you will then be deprived of your voting rights, gun rights, and prohibited employment at several dozen different jobs.

It doesn't seem to be very consistent with individual liberty.

[roo_ster]

MB:

You are correct in every bit of your analysis.

[makattak]

MB:

All of that is correct.

However, the lefties would tell you your example is ridiculous. Yes, the government COULD require you to buy broccoli, but it wouldn't because that's just silly.

After all, the government is us! And even though we could, we'd never do something so stupid as to require you to buy something you don't want.

[French G.]

We already have established precedent showing that pot grown in a backyard for personal use affects interstate commerce because Spliffy didn't buy from his neighborhood weed man.

Now we have thought or lack of action still being under the purview of Congress.

What's next, I stop eating beans and cooked onions, stop farting and some huckster sues me because global warming didn't happen and he can't sell carbon credits?

[Boomhauer]

The next step is taxing the money you save by not buying a new car (etc) as income.

Undoubtably the next step, especially when you consider the Dem's love of the union controlled auto industries...of course, citizens who are financially responsible are already punished for being so.