Mar 18 Sen. Ortman Gets It

Wednesday, State Sen. Julianne Ortman introduced a legislative resolution that would instruct Minnesota's Attorney General to file a lawsuit against the federal government questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandates in the bill.

"The legislation being considered by Congress is unconstitutional and threatens the rights of Minnesotan citizens," Ortman said. "The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to act now to protect and defend itself and its residents from an abuse of power by the federal government."

Ortman referenced several unconstitutional elements in the bill, including an individual mandate that would force U.S. residents to buy health insurance. Proponents of HR3590 argue that the Commerce Clause contained in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose this mandate; however, Ortman sees this as a clear abuse and violation of the Commerce Clause.

"The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, in a limited role, to regulate commercial activity that affects interstate commerce," said Ortman. "It has never been used to force anyone to buy anything; it is used to regulate economic activity, not inactivity."

I've written before that the ICC is the Democrats' catchall constitutional clause when they want to control our lives. It's been stretched beyond recognition. Sen. Ortman is right that the ICC was intended to give the federal government the authority to keep trade between states flowing without hindrance. It wasn't intended to give the federal government the authority to force people to buy things.

Stretching the ICC to allow the federal government to mandate the behaviors and policies of the individual states would essentially nullify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Those constitutional amendments were clearly designed to limit the federal government's authority.

I wonder where the AP found the 'constitutional experts' it quotes in this article:

Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the movement reflects a growing national frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

hese alleged experts are obviously full of it. Federal laws don't supersede the laws of the states. Each has its own jurisdiction.

The U.S. Constitution outlines which repsonsibilities are federal responsibilities. Generally speaking, anything not totally contained in a state is a federal responsibility. Affirmative responsibilities like maintaining a military is a federal responsibility, too.

According to the Tenth Amendment, those responsibilities not given to the federal government are the states' responsibilities. PERIOD. Furthermore, states can't cede authority to the federal government because the authority isn't their's to cede. That authority is the people's authority.

Sen. Ortman gets that.

Comments welcome at LFR.