[Oratam]

The government could require us to dine OUT rather than at home as dining in has a negative effect on commerce.

[Graewoulf]

By destroying competition, and using fixed pricing Obama”care” violates anti-trust laws.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Here is the problem as I see it.

If he didn’t grow wheat, for his family or for commerce, would he be penalized for not growing it?

That’s the problem with Obamacare. If I do not want healthcare or need healthcare, why shuld I be penalized for it.

Now I would take it a step further and reall screw up the SCOTUS. If I do not have kids I nschool, why should I pay property taxes?

[boomop1]

I is dead (Hopeful)

[MileHi]

The yoke of Wickard needs to be thrown from our shoulders.

[Paine in the Neck]

In my dreams, the Supremes not only knock down ObamaCare but reverse Filburn as well.

[MrB]

Madison:
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

---

This applies to ANY clause in the Constitution that the left uses to justify government expansion.
“General Welfare”, “Necessary and Proper”, “Interstate Commerce”, etc.

[buridan]

Sowell is great, but the 10th Amendment does not say “explicitly.”

[Political Junkie Too]

By this logic, Congress could outlaw private home ownership because it negatively affects the rental economy.

There was a time a few decades ago when Congress looked into imputing a rental income on home owners so as to tax that iputed income, on the premise that if they did not live in their own home they would be renting it and earning an income. Therefore, they should be treated as if they were paying themselves a rent for living in their own home.

-PJ

[kevao]

Alcoholism, drug addiction and STDs all contribute to rising health care costs. The Bible promotes sobriety, temperance, and abstinence from extra-marital sex. Ergo, Fedzilla should mandate that every citizen purchase a Bible.

[Verginius Rufus]

By 1942 most of the justices on the Supreme Court were FDR’s nominees.

[willyd]

insurance is only sold within each state, so the regulation of interstate commerce would not apply.

[Pearls Before Swine]

There was consternation in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. That conclusion might seem like only common sense to most people, but it was a close 5–4 decision, and it sparked outrage when the phrase “interstate commerce” failed to work its magic in justifying an expansion of the federal government’s power.

The 1995 case involved a federal law forbidding anyone to carry a gun near a school. The states all had the right to pass such laws, and most did, but the issue was whether the federal government could pass such a law under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

The underlying argument was similar to that in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn: School violence can affect education, which can affect productivity, which can affect interstate commerce.

Gee, this could be an argument against the legalization of medical marijuana, or the home cultivation of such in any stae. Some of the MJ could find it's way to truck drivers, and affect the reliability of their driving, which would in turn affect interstate commerce. Okaaaaayyy.

/S, of course

[cableguymn]

I gotta ask..

since I can’t buy health insurance from another state.. how can they claim they can regulate health insurance under “interstate commerce”?