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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (599394)	1/31/2011 8:36:21 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571405

>I'm afraid I have to agree with you, Dave. The corporate-loving Robert's court will kill it. But if they do it on the mandate thing, won't all mandated auto insurance be unconstitutional too? Why are you having trouble with this? For a year now we have been explaining to you in detail how these two have nothing o do with each other. This isn't complicated.

To: bentway who wrote (599394)	1/31/2011 8:36:45 PM
From: TopCat	Respond to of 1571405

"But if they do it on the mandate thing, won't all mandated auto insurance be unconstitutional too?" No.

To: bentway who wrote (599394)	2/1/2011 1:13:33 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 1571405

There's no federal mandate to buy auto insurance.

To: bentway who wrote (599394)	2/1/2011 5:04:17 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571405

But if they do it on the mandate thing, won't all mandated auto insurance be unconstitutional too? No. Not only is such a mandate very different, its also imposed by the state governments who don't face the same constitutional limitations of the federal government. Sate governments can do whatever isn't forbidden to them. The feds are only supposed to be able exercise powers that have been given to them. For the states everything not forbidden is permissible. For the feds anything not expressly authorized is supposed to be forbidden.