SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (135614)4/1/2010 7:24:29 PM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (3) of 543020
 
Tim, re: "Fine, lets look directly at the issue. What part of the constitution grants the federal government power to mandate purchases?

Its not regulation of interstate commerce since many purchases are in state, and since it isn't even commerce but rather lack of commerce."

Since you're evidently misinformed let me give you a short lesson in constitutional law.

First, if you think you can read the short document that is the constitution and then check mark what is and what is not granted or prohibited under the constitution then you're simply wrong.

There are literally tens of thousands of cases decided by the Supreme court, lower federal courts and state courts that define and refine the federal constitution. Many of those cases are decades or centuries old and they've withstood the test of time and are read as part of the constitution. As a result, you have to know the case law on a particular clause of the constitution in order to understand what is and what is not constitutional.

Second, with respect to the "commerce clause," it's simply amazing that you would make an argument that the commerce clause could not apply either because "many are in state" or because "it isn't even commerce but rather lack of commerce."

The huge body of legal precedent makes it crystal clear that neither of those factors will make a spit of difference and when you post such nonsense you're exposing how little constitutional knowledge you possess.

Third, the US Supreme Court may decide to limit the right of Congress to impose mandatory health insurance but if it does it will have to find a new rationale somewhere in the constitution or the conservative majority of justices will have to undo decades of well accepted legal precedent. In the old days your party used to call that "judicial activism," which they saw as evil because unelected judges were legislating from the bench.

Funny how things change when you're on the other side of the fence, isn't it?

You're welcome. Ed
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News