Colorado Amendment 63, the commerce clause, & the Constitution

In his article in support of Colorado Amendment 63 (health care choice), Wayne Laugesen writes:

Congress has no authority to require individuals to buy private insurance, which is the basis of the lawsuit filed by states. It has no such authority because the Constitution does not grant it, not by any twisting of any phrase. That might not bother a majority in Congress, but it will most certainly matter to federal judges when they determine which rights belong to whom — based entirely on their interpretation of the Constitution.

I hope he’s correct. Read the whole article in the Colorado Springs Gazette: Amendment 63 protects our freedom.

But the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted rather liberally – or absurdly.  This Reason.tv video makes this clear:

Re. the above video, Erwin Chemerinsky, the legal scholar who supports the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause, could play Judge Narragansett‘s nemesis in the Atlas Shrugged movie that’s in production. (I thought the novel did contain a second judge, but I did not find him listed in the Wikipedia page.)

For more on whether mandatory insurance and the constitution, see my earlier post: Randy Barnett on why mandatory insurance is unconsitutional.

Similar Posts:

This entry was posted in Amendment 63, Colorado health care and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.