A very good example of how expansive the Commerce Clause became is best provided by a case known as Wickard v. Filburn that was decided by the Supreme Court in 1942. Filburn was a farmer who was fined by the Government because he harvested more winter wheat on his property than the amount that was approved by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. He was limited to eleven acres, but he harvested an additional twelve acres that he was going to use for personal consumption only, and by doing so he incurred a fine that he refused to pay. The case made it to the Supreme Court and they unanimously ruled against Filburn because any wheat that he personally consumed would not then be purchased on the open market thus indirectly affecting interstate commerce. Plus, he may be lured into selling some of his wheat to the market if the price were to increase which was the objective of the Government at the time using regulation. This being even remotely related to the Commerce Clause was a stretch at best, but it did not deter the Government from pursuing it and prevailing with the help of the Supreme Court. This illustrates how anything you can buy, sell, touch, use, or consume can now be regulated based on a “perceived” linkage to commerce, and this became the primary mechanism by which the Federal Government has expanded its power through time.

Using this concept you can easily see this same practice being used with health care as the tool against us citizens to further erode our freedoms and liberties. Upon legislating universal health care and having the Government as the administrator it is easy to foresee them dictating the decisions concerning our health. Regardless of the form that any new health care plan takes, the Government’s involvement will be profound right from the beginning and likely increase with time. They will exercise full authority to select your doctors and hospitals as well as the treatments you receive as each of these providers and procedures will be fully regulated by the Government, maybe even by another appointed Czar that is answerable to none of us or our representatives. Health care will be rationed regardless of the promises made, there will be long waits as well as treatments withheld because any one specific case may not be deemed worthy of the expense. Life and death judgments will now be decided by someone other than the person affected or their family. These are the apparent things that can be envisioned because they are readily observable around the world, but an equally unpleasant thought comes from the combination of the Government inevitably having the customary monetary shortfalls mixed with their nonstop expansionism. In the interest of saving money on health care, they will start dictating and/or regulating your everyday behaviors by simply relating them to health care in some manner, however indirect, much like they did with commerce. They may become very interested in your habits such as smoking, alcohol usage, soda consumption, exercise habits, the foods you eat and how often etc. They may want to know what hobbies you enjoy such as skydiving, racing cars, flying airplanes, or spending time on a mountain snow skiing. What about work related activities like how much time do you drive, the dangers in your daily activities, your choice of job and its hazards. You can take this line of thinking through your day from sunup to sundown and everything you do in between and relate it to health care in some way, therefore they will have the authority to regulate and control our lives even more than they already do. The precedence for this behavior has already been long established and continues to this day. It is not far-fetched at all to assume they will exploit the health care system for their benefit just like they did with the Commerce Clause, it will just be the new means to their expansionary end.

It seems to be a constant that the Government always wants to increase their reach into our lives, for it has been an endless march since the Progressive era. It is a zero-sum game and any power they attain must be relinquished by the individual citizens or the state, and this transpires slowly over time. Universal health care may be viewed as a panacea by many in our society, but knowing our Government’s inclination and history, it will likely prove to be another failed program dragging our nation further into the fiscal abyss and eroding our freedoms and liberties in the process.

The Constitution of the United States provided for the U.S. Senate to be comprised of two Senators appointed from each state by their respective Legislatures. The 17th Amendment changed that provision from being appointed by the Legislatures to being elected by popular vote. This is a very important change because it shifted the accountability of those Senators away from the state governing bodies to the populace as a whole. It made the Senate beholden to the individual voters exactly the same as the House of Representatives, thus making the function redundant with that of the House and reducing its effectiveness. The Founders specifically provided for the states to have this direct voice in the Federal Government as part of the checks and balances integrated throughout the governmental system as set forth in the Constitution. It is just as important for the States to have direct representation much in the same way as individuals possess, but the 17th Amendment rescinded that notion.

It is understandable for the position to be taken that all of our Government should be answerable to “We the people.” In effect this is still the case without the 17th Amendment because each state Legislature is voted by popular ballot thus indirectly it still comes down to the individual citizens. What has been lost by the states and the individuals is a tool of consolidation to advance a strong, unified and cohesive message on the national level. Right now, any number of individuals can demonstrate, collect signatures, or use any other form of protest to garner attention in the national political process, and it is usually met with indifference even with thousands of participants attempting to send a message. However, if a state Legislature pushes a position on behalf of its residents, it becomes much more forceful being that they are speaking on behalf of their whole state with voting power in the Senate. Individual protesting is fine, but its message is often too diluted to get the attention needed, but states consolidate that message and push with more weight for the changes desired by their citizens. A system where Senators are accountable to everybody in the populace usually means they are accountable to nobody, reduce that down to the Legislature only and their accountability gets focused. With the system as originally implemented, the citizens would have two avenues for effecting change on the Federal level; they could work through their U.S. Representatives directly and through their respective state Legislatures in directing their U.S. Senators to vote for what is beneficial to the state.

The ratification of the 17th Amendment certainly looks like a monumental mistake for the state and its individual citizens by weakening both. There is potential legislation currently circulating around Washington D.C. that is contrary to the best interests of our citizens and future generations. It makes you wonder how much of that legislation would be rejected or reworked if the state Legislatures had a strong apparatus of control as originally provided. This would also include any legislation recently voted and passed that will prove harmful to our nation. All laws would have to go through a chamber that is beholden to the individuals as well as a chamber that is beholden to the state Legislatures on behalf of the residents within their respective states, so all legislation would have to serve the individuals and the states equally. Having the original structure modified has created an imbalance of power between the states and the Federal Government which is resulting in the arrogance toward the rights of states and its citizens. This is a big issue right now on the national front and promises to become bigger if the current trend continues. The Federal Government will attempt to expand and control more aspects of our lives and we have lost a very important mechanism for combating it by pushing back with state powers that were originally devised as a check on Federal indiscretions. States would be more effective in opposing Federal expansionism if they would band together to rescind the 17th Amendment and not just reassert their 10th Amendment rights. Getting back to the original intent of the Constitution is an action that would certainly bring balance back to the relationship between the states and the Federal Government while paying respects to our Founders’ original vision.