Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes for at Least Two Years

WSJ ^ | April 13,2016 | John Carreyrou and Christopher Weaver

[C19fan]

Federal health regulators have proposed banning Theranos Inc. founder Elizabeth Holmes from the blood-testing business for at least two years after concluding that the company failed to fix what regulators have called major problems at its laboratory in California.

[C19fan]

Ms. Holmes was a media darling because she was going to be the female Jeff Bezos, etc. I would think a two ban is a de facto death penalty for Theranos. Milo at Breitbart is going to have a field day. :0

[DoughtyOne]

[Talisker]

She’s been a fake from the beginning.

A sisterhood tyrant fraud babe like Melissa Mayer.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article C19fan. As usual, please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Federal health regulators ..."

While I agree that there needs to be government-enforceable standards for medical products manufacturers, and regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to thing about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), patriots please bear in mind that the states have never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate either INTRastate commerce or health issues.

”State inspection laws, health, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress.” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

And speaking of the Commerce Clause, the feds only have the constitutional authority to stop the products of the referenced medical company, evidently test results is this case, from being used to make medical decisions outside the state imo.

Insights, corrections welcome.

[PAR35]

Taken out of context.

Gibbons goes on to say in the very next paragraph:

“No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation. If the legislative power of the Union can reach them, it must be for national purposes, it must be where the power is expressly given for a special purpose or is clearly incidental to some power which is expressly given. It is obvious that the government of the Union, in the exercise of its express powers — that, for example, of regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the States — may use means that may also be employed by a State in the exercise of its acknowledged powers — that, for example, of regulating commerce within the State.”

[Amendment10]

"Taken out of context."

I respectfully disagree.

The context of the excerpt that I borrowed from Gibbons addresses nuances concerning the case that the Court was examining in Gibbons. Gibbons dealt with the feds regulating the use of navigatable waters within a state which the feds do have some constitutionally justifiable control over imo.

Gibbons v. Ogden

[PAR35]

“Gibbons v. Ogden ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden )

See, we can’t even agree on that. Try this:

Gibbon v. Ogden https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1

It clearly discusses a federal right to regulate internal commerce in some cases. The section you quote is *immediately* qualified by the language I quoted.