Obamacare and regulating commerce among the States, our Founder’s meaning!


Our Constitution states that Congress shall have power to:

***…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ***

So, just what is the meaning of “commerce” which Congress may regulate when it occurs “among the several States”? Keep in mind this question is of critical importance because a fundamental rule of constitutional law requires:

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” ___(my emphasis) See: Vol.16, American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), “Meaning of Language“, “Ordinary meaning, generally“

In fact, the historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was understood to mean the transportation and/or exchange of goods. In U.S. vs. Lopez, our very own Supreme Court, after quoting the use of the word “commerce” from countless contemporary sources during the time period when our Constitution was being framed and ratified, summarizes the meaning of the word as follows:

“Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”

Now that we understand the meaning of commerce within the context of our Constitution, another important fundamental rule of constitutional law comes into play and is stated as follows:

***The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.***(numerous citations omitted) See: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law.(1992 edition), Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

So, just what was the intended purpose for granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among (not within) the States? A clue establishing the purpose is immediately found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the Constitution!

***“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” ***

Indeed, Congress was given the power as it relates to the various states, to insure free trade among the States — an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.

We also find confirmation of this purpose in Federalist Paper No. 42 in which Madison states the following with regard to the power in question:

***“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.” ***

Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

***“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.” ***___ See: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6

It is sheer insanity to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be authorizing a power to Congress to enter the States to compel the people therein to purchase a product, much less interfere with an individual’s decision making regarding their personal health care needs and choices. And this is why Judge Hudson, in regard to Obamacare and its provision to require individuals to purchase government approved health insurance, found it to be un-constitutional and if allowed to stand would invite an “unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

While it cannot be reasonably questioned that Congress has power over the transportation of articles as the move among the States, it is nothing short of despotic reasoning for Obama and his progressive gang on Capitol Hill to assert Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the states is intended to and allows the federal government to enter the various states and require the people therein to purchase a particular article of trade favored by Congress.

And why is it despotic reasoning? Because the people have never debated authorizing Congress with power to involve itself in their personal health care needs and choices, and then consenting to such power to be granted to Congress as required under Article V of our Constitution, in which the people’s consent must first be obtained by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, prior to our federal government’s exercise of any new powers.

And what is the feeling of the various states regarding Obamacare? The incontrovertible fact is, 21 states have officially declared their objection to Obamacare which means the requirements of Article V of our Constitution cannot be meet, and thus, Obama, his Justice Department, and our progressive gang on Capitol Hill in pushing forward to impose Obamacare upon the people are acting in defiance of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted!

Bottom line is: ***Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process — tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE majority vote in Congress! ***


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


I still have a huge problem understanding why the States who took this to court have not filed in the Supreme Court which has “original jurisdiction” in cases in which a state is party. By not filing in the supreme Court they have allowed various provisions of Obamacare to take effect which in turn gets massive numbers of people dependant upon Obamacare and will give the Court a reason to not strike down Obamacare. As far as I know the States fighting Obamacare have not even made an attempt to file for an injunction to put Obamacare on hold while the case is being litigated. Something just does not smell right!

Our Constitution under Article 3, states in crystal clear language:


The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.


“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

In addition, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in supreme Court and not district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:

Hamilton says:

Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.’’ Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.

And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL JURIISDICTION (scroll to bottom of page) we find:

***“SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction.” ***

Bottom line is, the Supreme Court and not the inferior courts created by Congress has original jurisdiction over the Obamacare and the failure for the State AGs to not file in the United States Supreme Court and diddle in inferior courts while provisions of Obamacare are put into effect indicates judicial tyranny is in the making!


***“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”***___ Justice Story