selective application of "interstate commerce" causes double trouble in health care

Here's Judge Andrew Napolitano in the WSJ with a quaint citation of the U.S. Constitution-- with respect to health care "reform". Unfortunately, the Constitution has been vitiated by both major political parties. But I suppose it's nice to see someone come to its defense.

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution....

Napolitano reviews the relevant precedent before concluding with this case:

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states....

Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core....

And here's an especially painful and costly irony:

Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce....