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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (135611)	4/1/2010 2:28:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542970

Once again someone here makes a false statement about what I posted. I find that to be tiresome. It wasn't an analogy it was an example, and not one I created. If the example is to be considered valid the details of it are important. An analogy would just be a way to present an argument, if the analogy was faulty it doesn't show that the argument behind it is faulty, but using car insurance as an example is not a way to present the argument, it is an argument itself, if its faulty in its details than the argument is faulty. Supposedly mandated purchase of health insurance by the Feds was constitutional and otherwise ok, because many states mandate purchase of health insurance. But the federal government is limited to its granted powers while the states are not, and in any case the states simply don't require purchase of car insurance so the example doesn't apply. The two things are very different. That point has nothing to do with either an overemphasis on details, or with any analogy, its a basic point about how the example is invalid. (Of course if it was valid that wouldn't really be proof that something is constitutional, only they we have it whether or not the constitution allows for it. In this case it actually does allow for it, because the states don't face the same limitations of the federal government; but if it was something the constitution doesn't allow for, its existence would only show that the states are getting away with not following the constitution). You want to leave analogies and examples to the side? 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.