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: simplicity who wrote (493359)	6/29/2012 1:25:56 AM
From: Honey_Bee	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Those are great words, and they seems so obvious. Why couldn't the other five justices see it? We can only shake our heads in absolute disbelief that this has happened. How does one even GET on the SC and not love and understand the Constitution? Obama has indeed kept his promise to "fundamentally change" this country. What an outrageous and disgusting little man. He will have lots of blood on his hands because the ultimate result of this will be many deaths because our health care system will be limited, if not completely destroyed. Maybe, just maybe, if we can elect Mitt Romney and give him the whole congress, some of the damage can be repaired.

To: simplicity who wrote (493359)	6/29/2012 1:56:14 AM
From: average joe	4 Recommendations Respond to of 793955

"The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule . . . a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights . . . . The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights." Leonard Peikoff,

To: simplicity who wrote (493359)	6/29/2012 7:31:32 AM
From: carranza2	9 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793955

I have not yet gotten to that passage but it captures exactly what I think. IMO the Taxing Power justification is extremely dangerous because all Congress has to do to validly enact a dodgy law, one which would otherwise not pass constitutional muster, is to add a penalty/tax to it as a pretext, then not take steps to collect it. Coupled with the affirmation of the interpretative doctrine requiring a court to bend over backwards to validate a law against constitutional challenges, Roberts gave congress a simple road map to follow for essentially doing anything it wishes to do. I don't agree with the numerous blogs and talking heads who suggest that the opinion is a marvel of conservatism. It simply shifts one tired justification - the Commerce Clause - for another.