[dragonblustar]

This country has been going to hell for a long time. Today they finally put the tombstone over the grave.

[LadyEleanor]

Yes, all those Bush Bot, who refused to listen when we warned he was not conservative. Hope they are happy.

[An American!]

It all goes back to Wickard v. Filburn
Laurence Silberman, the judicial conservative who wrote the majority opinion in the case, Seven-Sky v. Holder argued, the Supreme Court in 1942 opined that Congress has unlimited power to regulate people through the Commerce Clause. “This gets me to a point,” I wrote, “that has gotten too little attention in the coverage of the Obamacare litigation: the central importance of Wickard v. Filburn to the pro-mandate case.”
The court wrote:
“No Supreme Court case has ever held or implied that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority is limited to individuals who are presently engaging in an activity involving, or substantially affecting, interstate commerce,” it said.
This led the court to examine the text of the Constitution to determine whether it supported the challengers’ contention that there are limits on Congress’s commerce clause power…
“Regulate,” at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and now, “can mean to require action,” … Nor does “commerce” refer to only “existing commerce,” it said.
We are where we are today because of 75 years of tortured jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause. As a reminder, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Commerce Clause has been twisted beyond all recognition.