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 Judiciary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (562)	3/24/2012 8:47:25 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 817

It might help create a situation where more people are insured. But I don't believe the federal government has any business dictating this. the ability to force commerce would be new. I would place a very large bet that the four leftwingnut judges will vote as a block to allow this. Obviously Kennedy is the swing vote here. Let us hope he attends to national opinions which run far against this federal power grab. Because the federal government hasn't tried to use the interstate commerce clause to force activity on those who where not engaging in an activity involving or substantially affecting interstate commerce before, at least not anywhere close to this extent. That might be because most lawmakers recognize that this is far beyond the powers allowed the federal government by our Constitution. States have the power to do anything the constitution doesn't forbid them from doing. The feds only have the power under the constitution to do what they are allowed to do by the constitution. States also have Constitutions. Some allow more leeway than others. I would agree that the federal government is supposed to be constrained to that which is allowed by the Constitution. That threshold has long ago been crossed. A good eight year term by a true conservative appointing perhaps three or four constructionists might help to restore that balance. Except that the mandate increases the price of insurance. And even if it did decrease it and was generally beneficial, "providing a benefit to the country" != "is constitutional. The point is the power grab. the democrats don't care about anything but adding power to federal bureaucracies that their philosophical allies will eventually come to dominate.