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


To: TimF who wrote (38566)11/13/2009 5:19:51 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Re: "The insurance is not sold between states because of statuatory restrictions which congress could eliminate without exceeding its clear constitutional authority."

Yes. As I've already said (Glass Steagel era), this has been the law of the land for over three quarters of a century.

Still, I am correct in pointing out that technically, (and 'at the present time'), there IS NO HEALTH INSURANCE "federally" sold. ALL is State regulated and State approved for sale ONLY.

Re: "There doesn't have to be an existing type of interstate commerce in order for congress to be the preeminent regulatory authority"

Yes.

You and I have BOTH said this (& agreed with each other) several times now.

We BOTH believe that overly 'activist' and 'Statist' Supreme Court decisions have warped the constitution's Commerce Clause far beyond all reasoning, and beyond it's founder's original intent.

As I have already pointed out: the entire body of federal anti-drug regulations (and, indeed, the DEA's very powers!) have only been enabled because of these pro-central-government-powers Court rulings.

PRIOR to the Supreme Court so inflating the reach of the Commerce Clause, when the federal government wanted to ban a substance (alcohol) it had to AMEND the US CONSTITUTION. and, when it wanted to remove the federal ban it had to amend the Constitution again....