The three cases you cited seem to limit the congressional powers under the IC clause not really expand it Which I know you are saying.
Well, it's what I said, but it's not really what I meant. Kinda screwed the pooch with a wrong word or two, there, sorry. Wrote it up too quickly and had other things going on, and was on the phone. I used "gives" instead of "limits". What I meant to say was...
"The Interstate Commerce Clause (under Raich, Lopez and US v. Morris)
limits Congress the power to regulate anything
unless it has a "substantial effect" on Interstate Commerce."
That's the argument for it being unconstitutional. And I agree with it. The cases cited show that Congress cannot regulate wily nilly just because it wants to, or non-commercial behavior on the assumption that such behavior could maybe, possibly, might be havin', some impact on commerce.
The key part of our Constitutional architecture is the vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general police powers. The current President and Congress want to fundamentally change that. And they want to change it in the face of an American public who doesn't want it.
I still maintain that universal health care is so fundamentally life-altering in this country that it should be passed with the same standards and rigors as that of a Constitutional Amendment, the overwhelming majority of the people need to sign off on it.
And while most of us knew it from the beginning, there is little doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that the Democrats had no desire for a bipartisan health care bill. The deal Harry Reid cut with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson proves that the Dems wanted no part of a bipartisan bill, otherwise the same type of deal would have been cut with any number of Republican Senators to get their vote. Other somewhat less impressive deals were cut with Democratic Senators from Vermont, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, and Connecticut.
Got to hand it to Nelson, tho, he got the government to fully fund Nebraska's new Medicaid recipients, forever. Not only that, but he got a tax exemption for non-profit insurers, like, you know, Mutual of Omaha.
Senator Harkins of Iowa called the backroom deals “small stuff” that distracted Americans from the primary focus of the overhaul bill. The Senator went on to describe the current healthcare bill as a first step that will ultimately lead to a public option. Yay.
There is a backlash from other states over the Nelson deal,
(7-State Backlash for Nelson’s Nebraska Deal), but even so, look for other Senators to start clamoring for their own deals as the House and Senate bills are combined into the final legislation.
