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 (38574)	11/13/2009 5:30:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Still, I am correct in pointing out that technically, (and 'at the present time'), there IS NO HEALTH INSURANCE "federally" sold. Correct, but that point was never under dispute. Its as if you added 2+2=4 in your post and then said "I'm correct". Its an irrelevant point, even if it is a correct one. 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. You miss the point again. Even without activist courts regulating interstate commerce is clearly withing the constitutional powers of the federal government. You could eliminate all those activist decisions and still congress would have preeminent power here. The activism involves allowing the feds to control in state commerce, and even sometimes non commercial activity which "affects commerce". Neither is really at issue when the subject is selling insurance between states. 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. Only the majority, or perhaps the vast majority, of the DEA's powers. You could still have a DEA that went after interstate or international commerce in drugs, without these activist decisions. They would however have no power in in state cases, except perhaps to provide assistance to state and local law enforcement enforcing state drug laws. Prohibition needed an amendment because 1 - it came before most of these activist decisions expanding the power of the feds, and 2 - it prohibited intrastate alcohol sales.