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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (38495)	11/12/2009 6:42:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The 50 States ALREADY have the assignment of full regulatory power over insurance sold in these United States. (And the federal government does not....) Not as a constitutional issue (any insurance sold in the US between states is interstate commerce and thus falls under the power of the feds; only by statue. Changing the statutory regime would be "expanding the power of the federal government" in a certain sense (although really its expanding how much of their power they exercise, not how much they have). technically (legally) there is no* 'inter-state insurance' since EACH and EVERY insurance product must --- before it can be sold --- be approved and licensed by the State Regulators* Not if congress says otherwise. Interstate commerce is under the fed's jurisdiction, even by a strict construction of the constitution. So far the feds have refrained from using their constitutional power for the purpose of making a unified national market, but they have the power to do so, even without relying on the courts' unreasonable expansion of federal power. That's why I say your conflating the issues. Yes opening up a true interstate market would be a change from the current situation, but its not something that the constitution in any way forbids. The constitution directly gives power over interstate commerce to the feds.