Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MeanGreen2008
I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.

Not by any description of the commerce power by the Founders that I've ever read. The "substantial effects" doctrine is an invention of the FDR and the New Deal court. It has no basis in original intent, and is in fact contrary to it.

152 posted on 12/22/2009 12:02:13 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic

To: MeanGreen2008
I’m afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.
Not by any description of the commerce power by the Founders that I’ve ever read. The “substantial effects” doctrine is an invention of the FDR and the New Deal court. It has no basis in original intent, and is in fact contrary to it.

152 posted on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:02:13 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)

The Heritage Foundation has already put out an excellent analysis of the Constitutional violations contained in this farce of legislation. The Commerce Clause clearly does not justify trying to force citizens to purchase a particular item from a private company and then fine/jail them for refusing to do so. It’s a bit lengthy, but worth the read. Whether Justice Kennedy will agree with the Heritage Foundation or with the Chicago Mob, remains to be seen.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm#_ftn49


167 posted on 12/22/2009 3:14:36 PM PST by littleharbour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson