Saturday, October 25, 2014
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

Lost & Found

Video Lost: Cat, black and white, last seen the evening of Sept. 29 in the Woodcreek Subdivision area, La Vernia. Reward for his safe return. Call Richard, 830-779-2080 or 210-776-4930.
Lost: Black female Chihuahua named Gloomy and black male Chihuahua named Rico, from CR 126, Floresville, missed dearly by their family! Call 210-428-3803. 
Found: Calico cat, female, white, orange, and black, on CR 352, La Vernia. 210-667-1052.
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

Retail Customer Service Associate, required skills/experience - customer service experience, basic math, money handling, and computer literacy a big plus. Forward your resume or letter outlining your experience ASAP to
The 81st & 218th Judicial District Community Supervision and Corrections Department (Adult Probation) is currently seeking a qualified applicant for the position of Supervision Officer for ATASCOSA COUNTY. Requirements: A Bachelor’s degree recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board in Criminology, Corrections, Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement/Police Science, Counseling, Pre-Law, Social Work, Psychology, Sociology, Human Services Development, Public Administration, or a related field that has been approved by the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD), or one year of graduate study in one of the above mentioned fields, or one year experience in full-time casework, counseling, or community or group work that has been approved by CJAD.  This position requires some evening and/or weekend work. Salary: Negotiable, plus Regular State benefits. Closing Date: Resumes will be taken until November 4, 2014. Procedure: Applicants should submit a typed resume and copy of college transcript to: Mario Bazan, Director, 914 Main Street, Ste #120, Jourdanton, TX  78026 The 81st & 218th Judicial District Community Supervision and Corrections Department is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos

Video Vault ›


Obamacare: Constitutionally Infirm

E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or
September 2, 2011 | 1528 views | 3 comments

By Dr. John A. Sparks

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the key feature of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known by many as “Obamacare,” is unconstitutional. The “individual mandate” portion of the legislation--a provision which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or suffer a monetary penalty--was found by the panel in a 2-1 decision to be constitutionally infirm. The two judges who wrote the opinion, one a George H. W. Bush appointee and the other a Clinton appointee, used 207 pages to analyze the legislative intent of the enactment, to explore the existing pertinent case law, and to carefully consider all the possible arguments for the individual mandate offered by both sides.

In the end, their conclusion was that the question before them was “whether the federal government can issue a mandate that Americans purchase and maintain health insurance from a private company for the entirety of their lives.” The answer they gave was a resounding “no,” to which every American should respond with an “amen.”

The opinion reminds us that the Constitution creates a federal government of numbered or enumerated powers. When Congress acts, it must stay within the boundaries of those powers. In other words, the federal government is not unlimited; it is limited. It is a government with considerable power, but it is also one whose actions must conform to the confines of the powers set out in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. If Congress exceeds those powers, it is acting unconstitutionally and the Supreme Court must rein it in. Chief Judge Dubina and Judge Hull have done exactly that.

The Obama administration argued for the constitutionality of compulsory health insurance by asserting, among other things, that Congress has broad power to “regulate interstate commerce.” True, said Judges Dubina and Hull, the definition of interstate commerce has been expanded, especially from the New Deal to the present. However, they add, what the Obama administration is claiming is “unprecedented” and “breathtaking in its expansive scope.” If commercial activity is already occurring, it is very likely that Congress can regulate it, but this is quite different from compelling “individuals to enter into commerce” by forcing them to purchase health insurance and then penalizing them if they fail to do so. As the opinion says: “Every day, Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest and save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children’s education and their health care. The government [Obama administration] contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes.”

That is exactly the issue. Will Americans retain the right to decide how much and where they will spend their money for health care? Or will they allow the Leviathan State to usurp that right? If the latter, then they should not be surprised to find that Congress’ voracious appetite for control of our daily lives will not be satisfied with health care, but will seek to dictate our choices of schooling, food products, energy, housing, and wearing apparel. Again, as the opinion warns: “The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore, Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Exactly so.

Because the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, has held in favor of the constitutionality of compulsory health insurance, thus creating a conflict among the Circuits, this case will undoubtedly be heard by the Supreme Court. There will be no more important decision on the Supreme Court’s docket, for the outcome will determine whether we will remain a nation with a limited government dedicated to the preservation of liberty or become a nanny-state with the federal government as our nurse.

-- Dr. John A. Sparks is dean of the A. J. Calderwood School of Arts & Letters at Grove City College (Grove City, PA) where he teaches business law and constitutional law and is a fellow for The Center for Vision & Values. A graduate of Grove City College and the University of Michigan Law School, Dr. Sparks is a member of the State Bar of Pennsylvania. He can be reached at
« Previous Blog Entry (September 2, 2011)

Your Opinions and Comments
7th Generation La Vernian  
La Vernia  
September 8, 2011 1:58pm
Time to rethink whether this law will even get there.
Federal appeals court rejects Virginia's challenge to Obama's health care law, saying the state doesn't have standing ... Read More Read More
Rock'n chair Rambler  
Over Taxed, TX  
September 3, 2011 8:09am
The question remains, will the US Supreme Court take up this case before the 2012 election or will they sit back and wait for the Obama disaster to be thrown out and sanity ... Read More Read More
Elaine K.  
September 2, 2011 11:28am
New post.

Share your comment or opinion on this story!

You must be logged in to post comments:

Other Commentaries
Commentaries page
Commentaries who represents me?
Drama KidsSacred Heart SchoolWilson's Auto ChooserVoncille Bielefeld homeBlue Moon Karaoke & DJHeavenly Touch homeAllstate & McBride RealtyTriple R DC ExpertsChester Wilson

  Copyright © 2007-2014 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.