National suit against the health care bill

There is a national class action suit against Obamacare. Ten thousand persons have already joined as plaintiffs. While the suit was initiated in Tennessee, anyone can join. The attorney who started it, by the unusual name Van Irion, “is asking the courts to re-evaluate the Commerce clause precedent, arguing that current precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment.”

That’s very radical. Irion is not just talking about stopping Obamacare, he’s talking about dismantling much of the accumulated structure of (unconstitutional) constitutional precedents under which we now live. I’m all for it. The current (un)constitutional structure, created by the rolling (un)constitutional revolution of the last hundred years, makes ever increasing statism inevitable. Therefore the only way to win, the only way to stop and reverse the seemingly irresistible drift toward socialist slavery and the spiritual death we see in the countries of western Europe, is by a constitutional counterrevolution.

Hey, we didn’t start this. They did. They made it clear they want to overturn America as a constitutional republic and transform it into an administered egalitarian state with no freedom. They raised the ante like no one’s ever raised it before in American history. So let’s call and raise them.

- end of initial entry -

A. Zarkov writes:

This lawsuit has zero chance of prevailing as it attacks the very foundation of our current federal government. It would mean all the cabinet departments would have to be abolished except for the Departments of War, State, Treasury, Justice, and perhaps Interior. It short it would amount to a take down of most of the activities of our current federal government. Such is the power of the Commerce Clause. In my opinion, the core argument behind the suit has merit. The so-called “progressives” have used the Commerce Clause to eviscerate the Constitution which really gives very little power to the federal government, and what power it gives is pretty clearly enumerated. That’s the basis on which the Constitution was sold to the states. However, I can’t see any judge, even at the District level, not throwing the case out on a motion for summary judgment. Most federal judges would be out of work as most causes of action would become moot.

The best we can hope for is a limit to the expanding Commerce Clause by declaring the health care mandate unconstitutional, and in my opinion even that’s iffy. We are at a crossroads. If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, then the U.S. Constitution in effect becomes almost a complete nullity. After that, the only thing Congress can’t do is outlaw abortion, and sodomy.

April 21

Robert Bove writes:

A. Zarkov writes:

We are at a crossroads. If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, then the U.S. Constitution in effect becomes almost a complete nullity. After that, the only thing Congress can’t do is outlaw abortion, and sodomy.

I agree that we are at a crossroads, but, instead of us having time to determine which path to take, the statist vehicle driving the nation is moving too fast for us to exercise foresight. It is by definition a crisis, a dilemma. The statists know it. They are not worried about federal court decisions. Nor are they worried about Supreme Court decisions—even ones they disagree with (witness Democrat open contempt for the Supreme Court justices sitting for the State of the Union address). They are not worried about the November elections. Nor are they worried about the Republican Party.

They are worried about the Tea Party movement. What else can explain enlisting Homeland Security, the entire mainstream media, the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, SEIU, ACORN et al to eradicate it? Only fear explains the reaction.

When in a crisis, the best response is to reach deep inside and act on tradition and/or principle. The Tea Partiers are doing that, and the arrogant, corrupt cynics running all our major institutions don’t like what they see. Far better that they fear We the People than the other way around.

To get back to the class action suit in question: judges are quite sensitive to politics (after all, they are politicians). Such suits may have little chance of success, but forcing judges to throw them out forces judges to pay attention. And it takes up their time, time they might be spending on something more personally amusing—and more importantly, time they might be spending on further eroding our God-given rights. A conservative Congress may not be able to slow or even stop statism, but We the People might just do it by forcing this government into a reactionary position. I think that has begun to happen. Stamina, anyone?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 20, 2010 12:43 PM | Send