Posted on 03/31/2010 12:13:02 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
But it has been used to limit what you can buy, two sides of the same coin. They are both freedoms in that you can choose without government intervention.
I'd be happier if they forced everyone to own a mil-spec M16, and to keep 200 rounds at home. The libtards would have a cow.
The existing supreme court precedents that pertain to the commerce clause are already stretched to the limits and are far beyond anything that the Founders envisioned. But even the Wickard v Fiburn case and the CA medical Marijuana case only involved commodities and whether the federal government could apply federal law to those situations.
Can you imagine if congress passed a law requiring all workers to join a union? Or how about a required membership in the Democrat Party? The Leftists could argue that both activities are good for the nation. They could say that we could reduce the divisiveness associated with political parties. Compulsory unionization would end all abuse of the workers.
You almost have to wonder whether 0bamacare was designed by the Leftist lawmakers to obtain this precedent.
You should qunatify that by stating:
This is truly unprecedented. The commerce clause has never been used to force people to purchase something from a private entity.
We are forced to pay into Social Security - but, that is a federal program ...
The potential pitfalls of upholding the law include Congress being able to force the public to buy ANYTHING from ANYBODY they deem. I don't think SCOTUS is going to buy into this ...
Social security was able to pass Constitutional muster because it was considered a tax on income. Social security is not actually a pension program (although it was sold to the public as such), it’s a payroll tax. The other thing about social security is that does not have a defined value. If you die, you can’t pass on the balance to your children for example.
0bamacare is not an income “tax”, it is a head “tax”. The 0bamacare legislation will not conform to the capitated tax requirements of the Constitution.
Ditto argument for Medicare.
No problem. I'll be happy with the positive prognostications from all the married ones. Plus, he might be right in a strictly legal sense. SCOTUS may rule in favor of those who pay them, as usual, but one must allow for the possibility that such a ruling would be viewed by the states as illegitimate since SCOTUS is a branch of one of the parties in the dispute. Perhaps a panel of state judges from other states might be considered adequately impartial for their ruling to be observed.
...blowback...Leftists...fatal...Ahhhhhh
What's that you were saying? I was daydreaming.
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.