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: Wayners who wrote (42031)	12/15/2010 7:30:20 AM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

As I understand it, Wickard was feeding his grain to his cows, which infringed on the federally sponsored agriculture cartels. That is the government's case here, a flawed decision from 70 years ago. The individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. The sooner the high court strikes it down, the better. The next hurdle will be the severability fight.

To: Wayners who wrote (42031)	12/20/2010 2:34:58 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "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." An even stronger example played-out at the Supreme Court a decade or so ago when they held that the feds (because of the wildly Judicially-expanded interpretation of the constitution's 'commerce clause') could arrest someone for growing marijuana on his own land for his own personal medical use... even though none of it ever entered into 'commerce' AT ALL, let alone ever crossed any State line. Back during alcohol's prohibition (and when it was later repealed) the supreme court held to the opinion that the feds DID NOT have any power to ban a substance... that that was a power reserved for the States themselves. Since they have expanded the commerce clause's 'meaning' to be anything and everything (whether it ever actually enters into commerce or ever crosses a state line or not) federal power is essentially limitless. The insurance market is certainly far more 'national' then one guy in Iowa who grows a few plants for his own personal use and never ever sells any of them to anyone, anywhere. <g>