The Commerce Clause and GM
By mattic
@mattic (282)
United States
December 18, 2010 3:41pm CST
Big government statists often us a bastardized and overly broad application of the commerce clause and/or general welfare clause to defend many of their policies. In light of this, could the government force you to buy a GM car? There is a debate at volokh.com.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@owlwings (43915)
• Cambridge, England
18 Dec 10
I never heard of 'genetically modified' cars before! Can any government force you to buy a car (of any kind)? They might be able to force you to buy health insurance but, surely, forcing anyone to buy a car is way over the top!
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
19 Dec 10
" surely, forcing anyone to buy a car is way over the top"
That's what a lot of us thought about the federal government forcing us to buy health insurance, lol. Not only over the top...but unconstitutional. And if they can force us to buy health insurance citing the interstate commerce clause of the constitution (which is grossly incorrect reasoning), they can force us to buy anything in the name of interstate commerce authority or for the "general welfare" (another bastardized use of reasoning) simply by declaring that such a purchase effects things in such a way. The constitutions authors never intended either of these clauses to be used in this way and there are plenty of other works by them out there that make this very clear.
Before you point out the requirement for auto insurance, as many use to justify health insurance mandates, there are some stark differences that must be pointed out. First, one only has to purchase auto insurance if one registers an auto. Second, this is something that occurs at the level of state government rather than the federal government. And not every state requires it (though most do), mine for example only requires auto insurance for those under 18 years of age...after age 18, adult drivers are not required to be insured as long as they assume liability in the case of an accident.
Our structure is set up so that the federal government and the state governments have different areas of authority. State governments actually have a great deal more power than the federal government, who was given a very specific and limited set of powers, leaving everything else to the states to regulate...or not regulate. The 10th amendment to our constitution then spells out that anything not listed in the constitution as a federal power is reserved for the states. In other words, it tells our federal government, "if we didn't think to put it in the constitution as one of your powers, you do not have that power...period".
@millertime (1394)
• United States
20 Dec 10
Good question. Can the government force you to buy health insurance? If they can do that, it would seem that they could force you to buy just about anything they wanted. All they would have to do is claim that by doing so, it would contribute to the general welfare of everyone. For instance, we might all have to by home alarm systems so we could cut down on break ins. That would lower all of the home insurance rates for everyone, right? That's the same logic that's behind the health insurance mandate so why wouldn't they try that too? GM is too big to fail. It would hurt the economy too much, so to benefit the general welfare, everyone will have to buy a GM car by 2012 or be fined... I know, it sounds silly but that is the road we are going down right now. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court actually supports the Constitution or not. Will they side with freedom or not? We'll see...
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
19 Dec 10
Three clauses have been used to justify all manner of garbage that would otherwise be unconstitutional. The problem is they are used in such a way that our founders never intended, thus rendering laws created using them as justification are still unconstitutional. These three clauses are the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause and the so called supremacy clause. A quick read of the federalist papers and other works by the constitution's authors will very definitively show that none of these clauses were ever intended to be used as they are.
If this health insurance mandate is allowed to stand, it will set a very dangerous precedent. If this is allowed to stand, what is to stop them from mandating that one obtain and prove they have a residence, such as a house or apartment? Before you call this ridiculous and dismiss this out of hand, think about it for a minute. As far out as that sounds, it really isn't as it uses the exact same logic and reasoning and method as they are using to try and fix access to health care coverage. This same method and logic could be used to try and fix homelessness and effectively make being homeless illegal.
A few thoughts from our founders on "General Welfare"
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects...If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers but an indefinite one"
~Madison
And then in federalist 41 he writes:
"But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!"
