From the Wall Street Journal:
A federal court ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration’s signature legislative accomplishment.
In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
It appears that Judge Hudson has a better understanding of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution than most.
Addendum: It would have been so nice if the authors of the Constitution would have as clear as possible as to what they meant when they wrote it. Perhaps they could have provide examples of what they meant. Amazing that we still fight about what they meant over 200 years later.
For example, it’s pretty clear what this power does:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States
And this one:
To provide and maintain a Navy
This one too:
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
But this one throws people for a loop:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Now, given that the “Interstate Commerce” clause is embedded between a clause empowering Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations (like setting tariffs) and Indian tribes, it seems clear to me that the this has to do with establishing a decision-making power to settle trade disputes when those arise between states.
For example, maybe one state’s legislature passes a law to inspect all people coming in from a neighboring state in order to impose a tax on anything purchased elsewhere and the other state doesn’t like that. The Constitution gives Congress the power to settle that dispute.
Or, maybe two states share a waterway on their border and dispute how that waterway should be used. Again, within the power of Congress to decide.