[ConjunctionJunction]

Congress can regulate "Mental activity" under the interstate commerce clause? That's a new one.

[vanilla swirl]

“Congress can regulate “Mental activity” under the interstate commerce clause? That’s a new one. “

Giving new meaning to the “Thought Police”?

[null and void]

If they tax it no democrat would have to pay.

[mnehring]

Bfltr

[tiredoflaundry]

IOW Mind Control?

[swain_forkbeard]

It must be so. How else to justify the thought police?

[gwilhelm56]

Someone PLEASE tell me the original article came from “The ONION” or John Siemens or one of the other FR Satire favorites!

Ping John Siemens

[swain_forkbeard]

It’s a twisted decision, to say the least. A lack of commercial activity is NOT commercial activity, any more than a lack of criminal activity IS criminal activity.

[Noamie]

I wonder if that Judge can figure out what I’m thinking, right now...

[musicman]

[backwoods-engineer]

In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity"

The fix is in, and we are screwed.

What time does the Civil War start? I don't want to be late. My powder will be dry.

[Dead Corpse]

Bring it b*tches...

[Buckeye McFrog]

I guess the FTC will now have agents tailing Uri Geller?

[Huck]

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted...

When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? And they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any control. This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into any shape they please. ..

They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted.

One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the meantime all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion.

The great Brutus

[Oldpuppymax]

It’s EASY to be a leftist judge. Just phone in your ruling and go back to fund raising.

[tacticalogic]

Congress can regulate "Mental activity" under the interstate commerce clause? That's a new one.

With that, they can regulate your decision to challenge them in court. Game over.

[browniexyz]

now we know why all the UNION THUGS are exempted from the law!!!

[Uncle Miltie]

[CSM]

“It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”

So, should we not also fine anyone who does not drive a car? We know that they are affirmatively deciding to avoid the gas taxes, resulting in a bigger burden to those that do drive to maintain the collectively benificial road system.

[algernonpj]

[Foolsgold]