It's really that simple. And a hell of a lot cheaper. They don't want reform...they want control.
We need a Conservative President...
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.
Check. But all the ammo on the planet is worthless without the will to expend it.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
This is the territory we inhabit today.
You are absolutely correct. And if this bill becomes law without the people rising up to reject it, the Marxist coup d’etat will be completed. The great American experiment in self-government and individual liberty will have failed.
Yes, but we’re talking about original intent. We must make our case heard.
It may not be the USSC’s job, but when the executive branch and states refuse to exercise their constitutional right to ignore or not enforce unconstitutional laws (as Jefferson and Madison clearly stated in their Kentucky and Virginia resolutions), then by default the USSC has the last word on what is or is not constitutional. Regarding the commerce clause clause, they’ve eliminated it.
Until we get a governor or president like Andrew Jackson who tells the USSC to shove it, then we will be continued to be governed by the USSC which finds everything constitutional.
It's really that simple. And a hell of a lot cheaper. They don't want reform...they want control.
We need a Conservative President...
We will see what the Great One has to say about the UN-constitutionality of all this. If this commerce clause argument proves, and I’m sure it will, to be completely fraudulent than ALL 60 Democrats will be implicated in a conspiracy to subvert the constitution and use their office to acquire unlawful power. Ignorance of the law or in this case the Constitution is not an excuse for willful and premeditated recklessness. If this case is made clearly and repetitively to a wide audience it will frame the Democrats as the usurpers they are.
and thanks JR for doing the homework to write this piece.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Do not forget. Judges are LAWYERS. And they are appointed by the politicians. Whom do they serve?
And thanks to you, we are making our case heard. That won’t be enough, unfortunately. We will need to get a reliable fifth and sixth originalist vote on the Court.
The gigantic vertical screw at the bottom of the photo is a nice touch as well.
Is that a screw that runs up through the pelvis?
You could not be more right, Jim.
Merry Christmas!
Yes, but my point is in line with Horowitz’s Art of Political War. The points of Unconstitutionality will soon be made and the Democrats willfulness must be characterized for what it is - an assault against the average person. We must attach them and keep attaching them.
Start with defining commerce. The American Heritage Dictionary gives us this definition: The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations.
Next thing is to define goods. This is from the Business Dictionary:
General: Anything other than money, real estate, or services.
Commerce: Inherently useful and relatively scarce tangible item (article, commodity, material, merchandise, supply, wares) produced from agricultural, construction, manufacturing, or mining activities.
AND
Economics: Commodity, or a physical, tangible item that satisfies some human want or need, or something which people find useful or desirable and make an effort to acquire it. Goods that are scarce (are in limited supply in relation to demand) are called ‘economic goods,’
Now define service:
Definition
Intangible products that are not goods (tangible products), such as accounting, banking, cleaning, consultancy, education, insurance, know how, medical treatment, transportation. Sometimes services are difficult to identify because they are closely associated with a good; such as the combination of a diagnosis with the administration of a medicine. No transfer of possession or ownership takes place when services are sold, and they (1) cannot be stored or transported, (2) are instantly perishable, and (3) come into existence at the time they are bought and consumed. See also service.
The democrats are trying to use the commerce clause to regulate a service industry.
Goods and Services in this case. The Wickard case involved goods. Which is what can be controlled through the commerce clause.
Insurance, medical treatments etc. have long been established as services. As such they do not fall under the commerce clause.
Given the history of judicial overreach using the commerce clause, do you really think that they are going to be stopped by a little quibble over services?
The Court reversed itself on the commerce clause after Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court. They caved and quit overturning his New Deal schemes. The Court must yet again reverse these decisions and that's not going to happen until we throw the Democrats out of office and get the Court back under control.
So basically they enumerated the 18 things the government is supposed to be doing and then put in a clause that said, ignore everything that came before, you can do whatever you want?
That’s the lie Diane Feinstein and her 59 unindicted treasonous co-conspirators in the US Senate are pushing.
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.