On American Thinker today, I write about the sad divergence between the actual Constitution and “constitutional law” — which is to say, Supreme Court decisions that declare what justices think the Constitution should mean.
The context, of course, is Obamacare. Defenders claim that “settled law” (that is, past Court decisions on the scope of the Commerce Clause) makes it clear that Obamacare is within the powers granted to Congress. My argument is that the line of cases “interpreting” the commerce clause as allowing Congress almost unlimited authority to dictate the behavior of any business or individual who does anything that might have even the slightest impact on “interstate commerce” is flat out wrong. The Court should not follow them in this or any other case. It would be a great day if the Court one day overruled the likes of Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn, although it need not do so to say that Obamacare is far beyond the authority granted to Congress.
