The Perfect Constitutional Storm

American Thinker ^ | April 6, 2010 | Larrey Anderson

[mrreaganaut]

Much has been made of several states suing the federal government over the passage of ObamaCare. The argument is, essentially, that the new law violates the 10th Amendment and infringes on the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. In this article, I will argue that this approach by the states will probably fail (in and of itself) -- but that the suits brought by the states could play a role in a more comprehensive strategy to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

[Jeff Winston]

The decision in Wickard v. Filburn started with Congress' legitimate, Constitutionally-delegated power to regulate international and interstate commerce, and stretched that to say that Congress had the authority to regulate any activity, whether it comprised interstate commerce or not, that had a "substantial effect upon" interstate commerce.

But this is simply wrong, and probably disastrously so. A federal government that can regulate a farmer growing wheat on his own land to feed to his own chickens has been given power that is virtually unlimited. The writers of the Constitution in no way intended to create a federal government with the power to regulate a farmer's growing of wheat to feed to his chickens. That's just ludicrous.

[mistressis]

I got a question. I’ve been saying the Osamacare mandate differs from Social Security because the one is health insurance and the other is more like paying into a pension fund. I’ve gotten a lot of pushback on this. Do you agree, or do you think that we should think of being forced to pay FICA as also unconstitutional? I need a good argument here for one particular person I know who is on the fence about jumping off the Dimocrat sinking ship. Thanks in advance.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

and social security is more like a giant ponzi.....