| SamuelRSmith said: Does the original intention of the constitution not matter when deciding these things? Because, you guys are debating by whether this is covered by the commerce clause... but the commerce clause is clearly used way more (and, arguable, very differently) to the way the founders intended (or, so it would seem, from the rest of the constitution, and the writings of (most of) the founders). Question: would such a law have been considered fair game 50, 100, 150 years ago? If not, why is it today? Has the commerce clause changed in anyway? One can argue that the reading of it has changed, but that seems to take away all intention, and effectively turns to Constitutionality into who's the best at arguing semantics... and then, really, the Constitution doesn't exist at all. |
To answer your first question most narrowly: generally not. There is a school of thought, originalism, that states that only the original intent should matter (although as a side note, not even the staunchest originalists are above ignoring this when convenient).
However, the general rule in judicial interpretation is to use the drafters' intent as only one factor, if it's a factor at all. This is true of all laws, not just the Consitution. The rationale here is that while the law was written by one or two people, it was approved by a majority of several hundred, and attempting to divine what each of those legislators was thinking is futile, so the stated intent of a handful of legislators is not dispositive. That said, this rule of interpretation also seems to come and go, as convenient.
In general, the two schools of thought regarding the Constitution are the originalists and the living document theory. The latter has been in primacy for most of the past century at least, although the former had recently been gaining strength. It's worth noting, though, that it's literally been centuries since the commerce clause, and most other clauses in the Constitution, have been utilized far past how the Founders utilized them. The process of some Founders having their individual intent getting overridden began roundabouts the time that the first Congressman took his seat at Congress, and it hasn't really slowed down since.
As for your final question, certainly not 100 or 150 years ago, because medical care was not regulated by the federal government. 50 years ago...probably not; access to health care wasn't as widespread as it is today. But one thing to realize about this line of thinking is that things like Social Security, Medicare, the draft, the FTC, and nearly every other major federal initiative of the past century would all have gotten struck down 150 years ago. The facts of life have changed over the past 200 years, so our reading of the documents written back then have too.
And if it seems like it comes down to who's best with semantics, well... that's probably more true than most would like to admit.
