A recent case may reveal how the Supreme Court will rule. by Don Goins
(libertarian)
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
For those of us watching Obamacare weave its way through the courts, the rulings so for are two judges (appointed by a Democrat president) say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional. Two judges appointed by Republican presidents disagree. Yet we all know these trials are just the practice rounds. Obamacare is heading for the Superbowl - the Supreme Court.
While there is no perfect system for predicting how the Court will rule, there is a very interesting case that it just refused to hear in January. It comes from Washington State and was overlooked by most, but it could shed some light on how the Court views interstate commerce.
First, let's recap the Obamacare case. The states are making the claim that it is unconstitutional on two points. First, that it violates states rights and sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. None of the four judges have viewed favorably on this point.
It's the second argument that carries more weight. The states charge that Congress overstepped its authority in regards to the commerce clause of the Constitution. The government has defended its position stating that the law is perfectly acceptable. Two judges agreed; two didn't. The question is how will the Supreme Court rule?
The case that may indicate which way the Court is leaning is Alderman v United States. Cedrick Alderman, a convicted felon, was arrested during a drug sting while trying to purchase cocaine. It was discovered that he was wearing body armor. The State of Washington has no law prohibiting convicted felons of wearing body armor, but it does violate federal law. The justification of the federal law comes from the commerce clause in the Constitution. As Judge Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote "to criminalize the possession by a felon of body armor that has been 'sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce.' 18 U.S.C. 931 and 921(a)(35)."
The James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor act is named for two police officers who were killed by heavily armored assailants. It was signed into law in 2002 by President Bush.
The government proved that the vest was made in California and then sold to the Washington State Department of Corrections. How it got to Alderman remained unclear.
Alderman argued that the law was unconstitutional. He claimed that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in regards to the commerce clause. Alderman claimed he did not cross state lines with the armor.
The court disagreed and upheld the conviction. Alderman appealed to the Supreme Court and on January 10 it refused to hear the case. By not hearing the case was the Court agreeing with the lower court? Unfortunately, decisions and discussions whether to hear a case or not are not made public.
Yet Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Antonin Scalia) did offer an opinion regarding the Alderman case. "The Ninth Circuit's interpretation seems to permit Congress to regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines. Congress arguably could outlaw the theft of a Hershey's kiss from a corner store in Youngstown, Ohio, by a neighborhood juvenile on the basis that the candy once traveled to the store from Hershey, Pennsylvania." said Thomas.
So, a piece of body armor is made in California. It is sold to the State of Washington and somehow ends up on a convicted felon. He is tried and convicted for possession of the armor based on the commerce clause in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court decidednot to examine the case a little closer.
That's a pretty broad interpretation of the commerce clause.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Don Goins only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Don Goins is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: February 1, 2011 07:25:37 AM
Very interesting...
You rightly point out that the Federal Judges who have so-far ruled on this case seem to be walking their Party lines. If they have ANY hope of one day getting a Supreme Court nomination, they would have no choice! These days it seems like the only safe place for Judicial independence is on the Supreme Court. I think that's why predicting how the Court will rule on the case is so difficult.
While it is no surprise how Scalia and Thomas would rule on the Health Care Law, I believe the others on the Bench will be more likely to give the matter serious thought to the possible ramifications to future legistation should they vote against it.
