[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As I've stated above, meanings of words in the Constitution have intentionally been changed to mean other than what the framers meant. To correctly "interpret" the words, a judge should apply the meanings at the time of ratification. And, when, in dictionaries of the time, multiple meanings existed, the context of the Constitutional phrasing and the recorded arguments at ratification and collateral literature such as newspapers, the Federalist Papers, etc. should be consulted. The context within the Constitution and wide usage of articles at the time as well as the Federalist Papers reveal a consistent meaning of "regulate" as used in the Constitution meant something like "to make regular" or "to make well-functioning." Nowhere is there an indication that to regulate, as used in the Constitution, meant to prohibit an activity nor to force activities that would infringe on the sovereign rights of the People. Prohibiting "inactivity" is clearly not a function of "regulate" as used in the Constitution. But, as I say, meanings of words such as "regulate" have been transformed from the narrow definition that was obvious at ratification to convenient "interpretation" that allowed the Federal Gvt. power it was not, clearly, intended to have. FDR's court was the main turning point.

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

That's not only a non-sequitur, but a contradiction. First, it doesn't follow that because the uninsured, supposedly, place a large burden that there is really no such thing as inactivity. Then to say that something which doesn't exist places a burden, is actually saying that that something DOES exist. Also saying that by not actively participating in the purchase of insurance is not inactivity in such participation means that all inaction is action. This may be true in some absolutist, minimalist philosophy in the same sense that no matter what we do, or don't do, is in some measure, responsible for the condition of the world. That may be true, but we do make verbal distinctions that are necessary for well functioning lives and societies. And if choosing not to participate in an activity means we have actually chosen to participate, we are doing so in a different way toward a different end. That is freedom of choice and association which is not to be abridged by the Federal Gvt.

I think you just made the Administration's case

Of course if we were to mandate that everybody is on their own...

It makes perfect sense to one who subscribes to current progressive interpretation of "regulate" and "commerce." In researching the meaning of "commerce" at the time, it also was consistently used in the narrow sense of actual trade and barter. Even though dictionaries of the time had other usages of the word, it was not used in the proceedings, writings, etc. of the time in other than the narrow definition. Also the Constitution limits Federal regulation to interstate (among the States) commerce. But, again, under FDR's Court, the definition of Commerce was expanded to mean anything that in the aggregate could somehow affect commerce. And this interpretation was allowed to apply within a State or locality, lifting the interstate requirement. Which is to say, everything we do, or don't do can somehow, no matter how remotely, affect commerce. These interpretations mean that the Federal Gvt. can "regulate" you to do whatever it wishes. Is that, is or is that not, tyrannical? And, if that is what the framers meant, why bother with the rest of the Constitution? The Constitution could have been reduced to one sentence--The Federal Government has the power to regulate.

At the time the Constitution was drafted most health care was dispensed by ones barber. Today my x-ray is read in near real-time by a doctor in India.

As I have agreed with you, there is a good chance that the Court will uphold the HCB, because of settled "interpretations" that have rewritten the Constitution. That we don't, as a society, see the erosion of our individual liberties by allowing another far-reaching intrusion into our lives because we are worried about the cost of health care means that we have accepted the administrative state as our benevolent benefactor, and have abrogated not only our personal responsibility to secure our own health care, but also our personal responsibility to secure the rights that were originally granted in the Constitution. And we, as individual sovereigns envisioned by the Founders, and including the Congress and POTUS, were all to be guardians of the Constitution, not just the SCOTUS. When Bush (my turn to insert the Bush did-it-too syndrome) did not veto the finance reform bill saying that he believed it was unconstitutional, but he was leaving it to the Court to decide, he was, in my opinion, in dereliction of his duty. We also, by our consent and acquiesence to whatever the Court says, are derelict in ours. But, who knows? there has been a small trend to originalism in the Court, and there is a crescendo rising in political discourse about return to Constitutional governance. Maybe the Court will try to reverse the course of Federal expansion.

I thought conservatism subscribed to the belief in the value of mundane knowledge that has been weathered by time. If a court finds an interpretation of the Constitution to be valid -- and it's stood the test of time -- doesn't this enter somehow into the mundane collective?

While there should be tremendous respect for the founding fathers obviously, doesn't the wisdom of those who've followed also count for something?

-spence