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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (478302)	3/24/2012 7:50:23 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793957

I'm glad that argument is being advanced with SCOTUS. Groups opposed to Romneycare sued on that basis here and were shut down by our courts on technicalities.

To: LindyBill who wrote (478302)	3/24/2012 10:33:56 AM
From: D. Long	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793957

When I started reading this, I thought it was going to go down the Contract Clause road. I grieve for the Contract Clause probably more than the abuse of the Commerce Clause, because it was the one limit on state power that seemed rock solid: "No State shall ...pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." This has been interpreted as no state shall pass any law retrospectively impairing existing contracts, but even that is eroded. A court can still uphold a retrospective impairment of contracts if, for example, the terms are "against public policy." Sigh.