I cannot pre-judge any issues that might come before me and so it is difficult to discuss specifics. Thus, the philosophy and issues that I discuss below have to be reviewed with the understanding that as a judge I will follow the law and analyze each dispute based on the Constitution, statutes, regulations and facts that come before me at the time of the decision regardless of my personal preferences.

Government’s role is to protect the rights of the individual. We need less government not more. The limiting force on government is the Constitution and the rule of law. We need judges who will uphold the Constitution and enforce the rule of law. The judge plays a pivotal role in our system. On the one hand, the judge must uphold the Constitution and ensure that the restraints on government are enforced. On the other hand, the Court must be careful that it does not rewrite the law and substitute its will for that of the people. While these issues can often be complex, I am concerned that our courts tend to read some rights broadly and some narrowly depending on their personal policy preferences.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he penned the Declaration of Independence stating that "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . ." Government's purpose is to create or preserve an environment where individual liberty can flourish. Typically, this means that government which governs least governs best. The more power given to government, the less freedom retained by the individual.

Interestingly, America’s government was probably the first government created with the purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. Historically, government saw its role as managing the resources of the community for the good of the community and often for the good of the government. The individual was seen as just another resource. Our founding fathers sought to change this. I fear that over the past several decades we have seen an erosion of our founding principles and a return to the concept that it is acceptable for government to use the individual as government deems appropriate.

Below are a few cases that illustrate the powerful impact the courts have:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Over sixty years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government could tell a person how much wheat he could or could not grow. This is an old case, but one that you may hear about as debate about the constitutionality of the heath care bill heats up. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 gave the secretary of agriculture the power to establish how much wheat could be grown among states, counties and individual farmers. The idea was to shore up wheat prices which had fallen dramatically during the great depression. Roscoe Filburn operated a small farm in Ohio and grew wheat used mostly by his family with a small portion sold within the state. The secretary of agriculture, Claude Wickard, determined that Mr. Filburn was growing more than his allotted share.

Filburn argued that because none of the wheat crossed state lines, the federal government exceeded their authority under the interstate commerce clause. Section 8 Article I of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers given to congress. Among these is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government argued that even though all of Filburn’s wheat was used within one state, it could affect the purchase and thus, prices of wheat from other states. In other words, if Filburn did not grow his own wheat, he would have purchased wheat from others and thus, his growing his own wheat could have had an impact on interstate commerce. There was no showing that it did have an impact but only that it might have an impact.

The Supreme Court agreed and held that the federal government could tell an individual farmer how much wheat he could and could not grow because it might have an affect on interstate commerce.

If this is a proper interpretation, are there any limits on government? Can’t the government always argue that some transaction might have an impact on some aspect of interstate commerce and thus, can the government regulate every transaction in America? If the government can regulate Filburn’s wheat, can government regulate another’s tomatoes, or tell a person, they cannot repair their own car, build their own shed? And, relevant to the current news, can government tell a person they must buy a product or service such as health insurance because of the impact failing to do so will have on interstate commerce?