Posted on 03/23/2010 9:05:24 PM PDT by Columbia
If all these intrusive federal government shenanigans are somehow justified by the 16 words of the “Commerce Clause”, maybe it’s time for the state-rights advocates to start thinking about a Constitutional Amendment to bring the Commerce Clause into the 21st century.
Since the 10th amendment didn’t seem to do the job, maybe the 28th would...
I personally hope the SCOTUS shreds the hell out of ObamaCare.....if not, I hope individual states will consider passing nullification legislation.
Yes it can be done, and SCOTUS is where it SHOULD be done. We need the court to definitively say “you simply cannot wipe your ass with the Constitution”.
Money, Gifts, etc...
Too easily traceable. He might have gotten away with the bribes for Congress, but the Supreme’s?
I don’t think Congress should pass any law to make you do anything. Laws can be passed to prevent you from doing things, such as committing murder or theft.
We’re getting kinda close to the .308 amendment, doncha think?
If this gets to SCOTUS, the MSM and Democrat Socialists will demanded that Just. Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a 'known activist' against the President.
If Just. Thomas recuses, the vote is probably 4-4 and the law stands. If he doesn't, the vote is probably 5-4 striking down the law.
This will make Bush vs. Gore look like a moot court practice session. Mark my words.
What was Judge Napolitano’s view of this case?
Does he think that this could be overturned by the Supreme Court?
I am hoping and praying that the Supreme Court will step up to history and defend the constitution.
You may want to check out this thread as a possible way to opt out of the obamanation. I have no experience with any of these ministries, but it seems like an interesting idea.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478301/posts
Good to hear.
“Even if this Act is struck down, don’t forget that the individual pieces can be enacted through separate legislation. “
Yes, but November is only 8 months away. . .
Well, we have to register for Selective Service, and/or the draft.
We have to pay taxes.
That’s a couple of legitimate things I can think of.
But to force to engage in one sort of commerce or another, of course, that is beyond preposterous.
Justice Thomas is not going to recuse himself.
He thought so but of by a 5 to 4 ruling.
The Congress can not force us to do anything.
Yes! How about:
"The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States shall be limited to negative and preventive measures against injustices among the States themselves, and not for any positive purpose of the Federal government."
__________________________________
That would put it in line with its original understanding:
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.
Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
James Madison, 13 Feb. 1829
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html
Don’t really seeing that happen...The judges wife is free to do what ever she desires....now if he were part of the tea parties that would be different...he cannot be made to recuse himself based on what his wife does...
Less than a year and a half after enacting the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-360), Congress was forced by a ground swell of negative public reaction to retract the legislation, the first major enhancement in Medicare benefits since the program’s inception in 1965. A retrenchment of this magnitude is unprecedented in postwar social welfare policy. The experience also appears to have soured Congress toward enacting further increases in Medicare benefits for elderly and disabled beneficiaries.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/9/3/75.pdf
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.