Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful

*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law "must be declared void." Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.
---

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several States," and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.


During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it's justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.


How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.


Produced by Austin Bragg. Approximately 10 minutes.


Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reason.tv
• reason.com
• reason foundation
• reason magazine
• obama
• obamacare
• individual
• mandate
• individual mandate
• health
• care
• healthcare
• commerce
• clause
• constitution
• wickard
• austin bragg
• supreme
• court
• john
• eastman
• erwin
• chemerinsky

[fireteamforfreedom]

It sure helps the argument that the government crony is cross-eyed.

[TruthAxe]

Economic activity requires exchange. For exchange is the basis of wealth and economics means all matters of man regarding wealth.

This has been known since Socrates for Socrates wrote about this exactly in his dialogue known as the Eryxias.

Erwin Chemerinsky is an asshole and a scumbag. I'm glad that asshole isn't my dad or brother. What a waste of air and food he is.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

Not so keen on what the Constitution says. I feel arguing about it is a dead end. For as Lysander Spooner pointed out, the Constitution must either have condoned the crimes of government, or have been powerless to stop them.

Rather, what we should concern ourselves with is right reason, and with liberty itself. Appreciate the document auesthetically because it (or one interpretation of it) recognizes these ideals, but argue from the ideals themselves and not from the document.

[dslider1]

"what we put into our body might be a personal freedom", says the brilliant collectivist Chemerinsky.

[BloodskullMannoroth]

Few words better describe these "living document" types than "fascists". Supreme central authority over the individuals in the name of the nation's well being was the very essence of fascism.

[publicanimal]

@Caduenas "Our economy is too complex to be regulated..."

You've never taken an economics class, have you? The market economy is a largely self-regulating organism, and most attempts to regulate it or steer it in a certain direction almost always backfire. We would do well to heed the founders wisdom and original intent by restoring the rule of law, rather than ignorantly claim that the founders "failed to foresee" what the modern economy would be like.

[publicanimal]

@jasonjia123 He wasn't taken out of context was he? Obviously ReasonTV has a bias towards liberty, just as Chemerinsky has a bias towards tyranny.

[jasonjia123]

Bravo to (biased)ReasonTV!

I do hope Dean Chemerinsky knew what he was getting himself into when he agreed to share opinions for such an IMPARTIAL video!

[Caduenas]

What this comes down to, is that the Founding Fathers failed to foresee and completely integrated economy, they drafted a Constitution in too simplistic terms to be effectively applied without controversy. Our economy is simply too complex to be regulated in the simplistic terms the Founding Fathers established. Pt. 3

[Caduenas]

Just look at Raich, Kennedy and Scalia gave a big "fuck you" to any progress they made during Lopez and Morrison, and these are conservatives we are talking about here.

Eastman is not being careful with describing what commerce meant during the time of the funding fathers. At the time of the funding fathers "commerce" meant "intercourse", that is, interactions, exchanges, interrelated activities, and movements back and forth, including, for example, travel, social connection or conversation. 2

[Caduenas]

Both Eastman and Chemerinsky are very smart men, and sadly, they both have good points. The Commerce Clause as interpreted between 1937 and 1995 does give Congress a ridiculous amount of power to regulate commerce (and then some). The decisions in Lopez and Morrison are a move forward, but it's hypocritical to adjudicate this to the conservative wing of the Court. Part I

[HatterMadigan]

Wow, this is warped info at it's finest.