Posted on 12/25/2009 1:56:41 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
And apparently 59 other Democrat senators agree with her.
It is my understanding that the intent of the commerce clause is to assign the responsibility of regulating commerce (the transportation and trading of goods with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes) to the central government, taking the law-making responsibility for “inter-state trade and foreign trade” out of the hands of state government. Its purpose is to ensure that trade flows smoothly and unrestricted among the states and that foreign trade CAN be restricted by taxes and tariffs, etc, by the congress where necessary and appropriate to promote the domestic economy.
It was never intended to regulate the agricultural industry itself, or the manufacturing process of products or goods, or services, and definitely NOT to regulate or tax individual FREE citizens.
And the commerce clause was never intended to regulate trade among private citizens, nor does it regulate intra-state commerce, nor does it override states rights to govern themselves. The 10th amendment rules!
We the people continue to enjoy our God-given unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness also including among others the constitutional rights to private property, security in our homes and private affairs, due process, presumption of innocence, right to trial before a jury of our peers, etc, and the rights to self-defense and to defend ourselves and our property and our posterity against tyrannical government!
Somebody please tell me where I'm wrong.
One is a good, a tangible product.
The other is a service.
Split the hairs if we must, all the cases I’ve seen sighted thus far deal with tangible products. Not services.
If they want to create an Economic Service Clause Amendment, then I say...let’s have at it.
This is a very sneaky thing they try to do with insurance and medical services. Redefining it without ever challanging it. As I posted on another thread, show me the CFR that does this. Case law so far falls short of dealing with services.
When I read this, “there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates.”
I wanted to pick up the phone and call her, not her staff, her. There is a Constitutional limit.
If their powers are not enumerated in the Constitution, then they reside with We the People. And we ALL know on FR that is a truth.
What she said is treasonous to We the People. They do have limits. Congress cannot decide how I am to spend my productivity or on what goods and services I must have.
They are way, way over the line.
Individuals who don't sell their pot don't substantially impact interstate commerce. Individuals who do sell their pot do substantially impact interstate commerce in the aggregate.There's no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty which one will and which one won't, so both fall within the regulations.
[crickets]
“The only conceivable constitutional basis for Congress requiring that Americans purchase a particular good or service is the power to regulate interstate commerce,” said Mr. Hatch.
“Even if the Supreme Court has expanded the commerce power, there has been one constant,” Mr. Hatch continued. “Congress was always regulating activities in which people chose to engage. They might be non-commercial activities or intrastate activities, but they were activities.”
Yet the committee’s health care proposal, Mr. Hatch said, did something entirely different.
“Rather than regulate what people have chosen to do, it would require them to do something they have not chosen to do at all,” he said. “If we have the power simply to order Americans to buy certain products, why did we need a Cash-for-Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy appliances? We could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers or refrigerators.”
Or broccoli, or carrots, or “medical marijuana” for that matter.
The Constitution’s commerce clause is short and simple. It says: “The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Now, imagine an American sitting on his back porch casually enjoying the would-be anathematized state of not owning health insurance. When it comes to health insurance, this American has not been, is not and never intends to be engaged in any form of commerce with any entity in any foreign nation, distant state or Indian tribe.
If he did decide to engage in health-insurance-related commerce with any entity in a foreign nation, distant state or Indian tribe, Congress could constitutionally regulate that action. But this American simply won’t oblige. As a free person - like generations of Americans before him - he has weighed the risks and benefits of buying health insurance, and he has decided not to buy it. He is fully ready to accept the good and bad consequences of this decision.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/24/open-wide-and-say-ah/
Sez who?
My argument stands on its own, still unrefuted. You've been unable to craft any response to it.
No wonder RP held you in such low regard.
I drove him crazy one night and he got himself zotted. :-)
[crickets]
Yes there is. If the product is sold and shipped it part of commerce. If it isn't it isn't.
There! your crickets are dead just like that pedophilic Constitutional moron, robertpaulsen. :-)
I do believe you had some help lol. I hope RP has himself a very Merry Christmas wherever he is lurking these days.
You mean the argument you've run away from a half dozen times or so now?
Individuals who don't sell their pot don't substantially impact interstate commerce. Individuals who do sell their pot do substantially impact interstate commerce in the aggregate.Your continuing evasion is telling. Squealing "Wickard" doesn't address the facts.There's no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty which one will and which one won't, so both fall within the regulations.
You know now if it will eventually be sold by whether or not it is sold later?
Trippy! That's some heavy logic there, dude!
It is very simple logic. If it enters into the stream of commerce then it is a part of commerce. If it doesn’t enter that stream it isn’t part of commerce and needs no regulation. We are talking about the regulation of commerce are we not?
But in the case of US vs Knight, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturing is not the same thing as commerce, so the individuals who do not sell their pot are not engaging in commerce that can be regulated.
Now, there may be some later Supreme Court cases saying different things.... Can you think of any? No W’s.
You refuse to address the argument I raised, so you're reduced to crying to others.
TKO. You're done.
So Congress simply has to use a crystal ball "to know with any reasonable degree of certainty which one will and which one won't" sell pot?
Well, it's an absurd proposition, but it's more than your comrade managed.
Of course I addressed it, noting it depends on Wickard, and citing a previous precedent under which your argument would have no merit. Can’t you go find RP and come back with a real argument?
Well, it's an absurd proposition, but it's more than your comrade managed.
There is nothing absurd about it at all. When something enters commerce it is easy to track. Everything is in a data base now. Shipping is in a data base. Sales are in state and federal tax data bases. If something enters into commerce it is recorded six ways from Sunday now.
I'm amazed you didn't revert to talking like a child in that post like you did in the previous one. It fits your childish circular reasoning.
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.