Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut; Parley Baer

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the courts have NEVER before found that NOT buying something affects interstate commerce. It would be an noteworthy (and vulnerable to challenge) expansion of legal precedent. The shock to the conscience of such a commerce clause claim is the heart of the 10th Amendment challenge, and I don’t dismiss it as readily as the author, Mr. Anderson.


15 posted on 04/06/2010 8:57:04 PM PDT by mrreaganaut (Coolidge for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: mrreaganaut

thank you, my love. Miss you.


16 posted on 04/06/2010 9:02:09 PM PDT by reaganaut (- "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: mrreaganaut
Perhaps I should have mentioned that the courts have NEVER before found that NOT buying something affects interstate commerce.

I'm no legal expert, so maybe this doesn't (quite) count, but it's pretty darn close. I read Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society recently, wherein he describes abuse of the Commerce Clause including an example where the court ruled that a guy growing his own wheat for his own consumption decreased the demand for wheat on the open market, hence the feds had the authority to regulate his production.

quoted here

18 posted on 04/06/2010 9:52:01 PM PDT by Darth Reardon (Im running for the US Senate for a simple reason, I want to win a Nobel Peace Prize - Rubio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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