The 6th District Court of Appeals Has It Dead Wrong
by Bill Simon
Beyond all the cites in the Sixth District Court of Appeals’ decision on the healthcare law, I find this one little sentence at the bottom of Page 23 of the decision to be…kinda…nonsense in the fullest sense of the word. Under Section C, 2nd sentence:
“However, the text of the Commerce Clause does not acknowledge a constitutional distinction between activity and inactivity, and neither does the Supreme Court.”
What is the definition of “commerce?” Commerce is the activity of the buying and selling of goods and services. Nothing more, nothing less.
SO…if you have no activity (i.e., “inactivity”), you have no commerce. So, if an individual is not buying a health insurance policy, he/she is not participating in a commerce-related act. Therefore, the “Commerce Clause” cannot be used to compel someone to engage in an economic activity when they are not choosing to engage in it now.
Apparently, the judges missed the actual concept of what “Commerce” means. It means “activity,” not inactivity. NOW, this court is stating Congress can regulate anything you’re NOT doing. Geez. What idiotic logic. And, with that logic, the Constitution is clearly no longer needed.
Here’s the danger in this illogical reach into the realm of non-commerce: It does not matter what that “something” is that someone is not engaging in. It can be a health insurance policy as it is in this case…but, if it is argued down the road that everyone who doesn’t own a gun now is required to buy a gun or get fined, then this court will have a very difficult time saying “No, Congress cannot require people who don’t have a gun to buy a gun” when they’ve decided Congress does have the power to require someone to buy a health insurance policy (or face a fine/penalty) when they’ve personally opted to not buy an insurance policy.
