Differing view of the Constitution

Differing view of the Constitution

I write to comment upon an Oct. 12 letter from a Warren man who castigated Atty. David Betras for alleged “misrepresentations” concerning the federal Constitution. David is certainly capable of intelligently defending himself from these complaints, but I believe the statements and allegations in the letter are so completely wrong and inaccurate that his letter requires an immediate response.

First, he notes that the “entire document” (the Constitution) can be read in less than fifteen minutes. While that may be literally true, let me assure the writer that it will take an intelligent person many, many hours to read and learn about the Constitution, and to become knowledgeable of the thousands of federal court decisions, including from the U.S. Supreme Court, which have interpreted “that document,” and have applied it to real-life situations and controversies. As a lawyer and avid student of history for many years, I have done my homework.

The writer complains that Mr. Betras misrepresents Article VI that “federal law trumps state law.” Mr. Betras is totally correct in that assertion. Issue 3, if passed in Ohio, would not “trump” the federal Affordable Care Act. To suggest otherwise is simply not true. Article VI of our Constitution states, in relevant part, that, “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuant thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.” Since the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madsion in 1803, federal courts have had and exercised the power to review federal and state laws to assure compliance with that federal supremacy. That concept is well ingrained into the division of powers in America.

And last, the letter states that the fathers of our Constitution intended “to limit the powers and scope of the federal government, leaving most authority for governance with the States.” In fact, the basic intent of delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 was to amend the Article of Confederation because they were too weak to govern the 13 states. Each of the states was basically independent and autonomous, passing its own internal laws and circulating its own currency.

The Articles were not strong enough to govern the new, independent nation. It lacked an executive branch, had no court system, and could not regulate trade between the states. In short, it needed to be strong to efficiently and fairly govern individual states and to command respect abroad. Thus a strong central government was considered to be essential for the new nation and it was championed by the Federalists who prevailed.

Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the ACA’s individual mandate to purchase insurance remains to be seen. Without doubt, Congress has the right and power to regulate interstate commerce. An individual mandate to purchase insurance, being a fundamental and necessary part of federal law to deal with our nation’s health care, would seem to be a reasonable exercise of power.

Richard P. McLaughlin, Youngstown