Posted on 03/22/2012 4:01:41 AM PDT by JOHN W K
What makes you think the author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution” would ignore the Framers?
-—These disgusting tyrants and communists are really itching for unrest now.-—
If mandated purchases are added gradually, the public will acquiesce, sad to say. People are no longer trained to reason from first principles, so few people act on principle. Most people now act out of self-interest.
“Concentrated benefits and diffused costs,” as Milton Friedman used to say, is what currently drives legislation.
IOW, it can determine the facts of the case as if the lower courts did not exist. Unlike jury trials, Scotus is not limited to considering only that which the plaintiffs/defense bring up.
Wiehl is correct, although completely wrong when it comes to the intent and meaning the founders put into the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Go back well over 100 years and it’s easy to find multiple cases where Congress and/or the USSC has taken the position N&P basically removed all limitations upon the federal government allowing them to legislate whatever they wish on any given day.
I was more confident on the commence clause argument failing than Necessary and Proper not passing USSC muster.
Communism: Sometimes necessary and proper, right?
Gulags? Well, the Soviet Union found them necessary and proper, so who are we to judge?
Mass genocide of entire classes of Americans? Necessary and proper!
Wow. Just, wow.
I’m wondering when Lis argued a case in front of the SCOTUS?
She always has som BS progressive take on everything.
I guess we will all be shouting, “Come and get me... G-man”!
LLS
Thanks for noting that...something missing from my government education!
LLS
LLS
I think BOR is a closet dem also.
It's just a strange nose...look at the tip.
This is utter BS. Does the government have the right to tax at 100% rate all the money above $ 50,000 that an individual earns? Would the Supreme Court agree that this law is right if it passes?
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional
And Justice John Marshall also stated in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
State inspection laws, health laws, 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.
And Justice Barbour referenced the above case in New York v. Miln, 1837, and confirmed the State’s authority over the subject of health laws:
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."
And finally, almost 100 years later the Supreme Court again confirmed Congress is without power to regulate medical practices in the States!
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” ___ Linder v. United States, 1925
JWK
Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote
I’ll check it out.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.