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: cnyndwllr who wrote (135648)	4/1/2010 7:38:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543013

The constitution remains what it is. The courts interpret it and order the interpretation applied. If they interpret the power to regulate interstate commerce to compel non-commerce within a state, than they are simply interpreting it incorrectly.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (135648)	6/8/2010 7:37:32 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543013

when you post such nonsense you're exposing how little constitutional knowledge you possess. This statement seems to imply (please correct me if I am wrong) that your knowledge of the Constitution is greater than Tim's. You also went on to state: .....the US Supreme Court may decide to limit the right of Congress to impose mandatory health insurance but if it does it will have to find a new rationale somewhere in the constitution or the conservative majority of justices will have to undo decades of well accepted legal precedent. I gather that it is your position that the Congress has the right, based on decades of well accepted legal precedence, to require private citizens to purchase health insurance. Perhaps you could inform us of some of the specific "well accepted legal precedents" that would support that position, that the Congress of the United States has the right to require private citizens to purchase health insurance. Even, wealthy individuals who possess the assets necessary to personally pay all costs of whatever health care they may require. Specific case number references of these legal precedences will do just fine. Clips supporting your argument from decisions in this area would be even better. Please keep in mind that we are referring to federal precedence, not state-controlled issues such as purchasing automobile insurance (arguably necessary to protect the victims of accidents potentially caused by uninsured drivers). Nor requirements for purchase of mortgage insurance to protect the lender.