On the recordJune 7, 2012
I know the majority leader is extremely busy, and I appreciate his courtesy and respect with the difficult duty he has here. She said: Are you serious? Well, when the Solicitor General of the United States was being grilled by the Justices, I have to say it looked serious then. It is axiomatic that the Commerce clause--which is the provision in the Constitution that the law's supporters argue gives the government the power to take over health care--was never understood to grant unlimited power to the Federal Government. The Federal Government, without doubt, is a government of limited powers. It certainly never meant that Congress could regulate noncommerce under the power to regulate commerce. We can't regulate noncommerce when the only power the Federal Government is given is the power to regulate commerce. Give me a break. As distinguished Judge Roger Vinson stated in his opinion in this case when he struck this bill down: It would be a radical departure from existing law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting--as it was done in the Act--that compelling the actual transaction is itself ``commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,'' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted . . .…
Source
govinfo.gov




