Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (38450)	11/11/2009 6:29:17 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Very nice post! Thanks! Too bad that it DOESN'T establish it's legal premise though! Firstly, (taken from the HEADLINE): "Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales?" That's, in my opinion, a VERY GOOD QUESTION! But, I can't help but NOTICE that it's arguing for an EXPANSION OF FEDERAL POWER over certain powers that are currently (by law) reserved for the STATES. So... to follow the thought out... if one was to EXPAND the Commerce Clause's reach in this area (to give the Feds absolute authority over insurance that supersedes the State's authority) then that would ONLY FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE is completely CONSTITUTIONAL. (It would not make it any LESS constitutional, it would clearly only make it even more solidly constitutional!) So... the article's HEADLINE doesn't exactly help your assertion! Secondly, I'd like to point-out that I (for one) happen to BELIEVE (in full accord with the author of your posted article!) that a whole series of activist Court decisions have served to STRETCH THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE beyond all reason... and have massively OVER-EXTENDED federal power so that (according to Supreme Court decisions, including a very important one in the 1970s that your article overlooks) Federal Authority is practically UNLIMITED... and can extend EVEN INTO AREAS WHERE NO 'COMMERCE' EVEN CROSSES STATE BORDERS. As just one example: the ENTIRE FEDERAL PROSCRIPTION and PROHIBITION on various drugs has only been made possible by this over-stretch of the Commerce Clause. Earlier in the 20th. Century, the Courts held that TO BAN A SUBSTANCE FROM COMMERCE (alcohol) on a national level REQUIRED THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED --- because the federal government had no such inherent powers. Subsequent ACTIVIST COURTS though have vastly expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause. You can't have it BOTH WAYS though! Either we have a "big Commerce Clause", allowing federal authority to extend to practically everything, like we do now, (and making national health care CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL!), or we DON'T. If we DON'T then we'd have a smaller, more reasonable legal view of the power that the Commerce Clause grants to the federal authorities... and all the national drug regulations is null and void, and the powers revert back to the States (as they are still with insurance regulations now!), and things are as they have been for centuries....