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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (42014)	12/14/2010 4:41:07 PM
From: Wayners	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

I thought the Wickard case was a farmer who was growing wheat for his family's own use food/feed during the depression and that the Govt claimed it could fine the guy for producing more wheat than Govt quotas allowed. He argued, hey Feds, this stuff is not entering interstate commerce. Supremes didn't care and said there was somehow a significant nexus to interstate commerce if every farmer did what this farmer did. So now the Commerce Clause can be used to regulate any economic activity (producing any product or performing any service--supply side). What a stretch that is my friend. I can't see the current supremes stretching an already ridiculously stretched commerce clause to the next level which would allow the Govt to regulate both the supply AND the demand by forcing people on the demand side of the equation to buy products and services they don't want or need. The real purpose of the Commerce Clause was to allow the Congress to strike down tariffs between states. What in the hell that has to do with forcing people to buy insurance from the Company Store is beyond common sense.