Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hamlet

Let's talk Commerce Clause and some implications

Rate this topic

32 posts in this topic

So let's say the Commerce Clause is ruled so broad that it is essentially as if the Framers wrote this into the Constitution:

 

"we are establishing a government limited in scope... so as to preserve our freedom... and therefore Congress has the power to make the people do anything it decides."

 

Let's say that and explore the implications.

 

Congress decides the Feds control the health industry. Arguments are made routinely like this:

"No you may not do Activity A because that behavior costs us ALL". (Actually, it would really be "Since Activity A can be said to be commerce, we simply declare you may not do it and we owe you no reason" buts that another thread).

 

What behaviors might Activity A be? Here's one...

 

1) Limits on family size. You may not have more than one kid. Why? Kids cost money. Kids have an impact on the health industry. Kids spread germs. Whatever, we owe you no explanation.

 

2) Death panels... well we already know this implication... it's an easy one to see... just witness the Left comments about Dick Cheney's heart transplant: "He did not deserve one."

 

3) Food rationing. Sorry, you have had your monthly quota of twinkies. Time to eat your peas.

 

What else?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4) Chevrolet Volt in every driveway.

 

5) We need "X" amount of people for this job.

 

6) We need blonde blue eyed children, you mate at our discretion.

 

Everything will be in play. Today it's just heathcare, Tommorrow who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If you don't talk about Trayvon, you're a racist.*



 



 



 



The Obama gang got caught in a funny yesterday.



For the purposes of the argument yesterday, the mandate was not a tax.



For today and tomorrow, Obamacare is a tax.



He got called out on that-by BREYER!



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



*You're a racist anyway, but if you don't talk about Trayvon, your really really a racist.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dont forget the part where you do have the choice of not doing what the govt says......of course then you pay a big tax for the privledge........

 

This an insidious one.

They do it now, but with a ruling from the Supremes it can be overt.

 

We want behavior X. If you do it, we won't tax you. However you are in the Land-of-the-Free, so you are free to NOT do X. However, that will cost. Your freedom carries this price tag...

 

They do it with States. Pay your road tax. Now we will give it back... oh wait... you want a speed limit higher than 55? Well ok you have that freedom... but BTW we have decided not to give back your road taxes... good luck suckers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I hear about this law the more angry I get.

I heard last night that cost over a billion dollars to IMPLEMENT the law alone.

This thing HAS to go.

 

I saw on morning Joe today that costs were supopsed to have droppped about 2500$ so far under obamacare......seems however they went up 2500$ instead..........

 

and thats nto even why it shoudl be overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

So many of the 535 are total and complete IDIOTS. I wouldn't elect 98% of them to town dog catcher yet a transient congress and idealogue president pushed this unwanted legislation through. If the SCOTUS values our republic at all, they MUST strike down this law. if they don't, it's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One characteristic of the immature is thinking that the way things are today is the way they are going to stay. Teens think that they will live forever so they are oblivious to risk. Or the next day they think that life will never be worth living because their sweetheart dumped them for another.

 

This is the only explanation I can think of to justify any voter would support such a radical extension of the abuses the Commerce Clause has suffered already.

 

The only thing constant and predictable about political power is that it will change from one side to the other. What will the radical lefty think if the power shifts to some radical social conservative? That possibility scares the crap out of me and I'm conservative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I hear about this law the more angry I get.

I heard last night that cost over a billion dollars to IMPLEMENT the law alone.

This thing HAS to go.

 

More than one billion:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Liberal media is already in full works as we speak. So far today, they twisted several elements of this case into their favor in terms of how they report it.

 

1) They're reporting that if it is found unconstitutional by a narrow margin - let's say 5 votes to 4 - it won't (or shouldn't) be a black mark on Obama's record...as if there was some long litigations of sorts..the reality is that the 9 members of the Supreme Court who are looking at happen to be comprised of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats...So basically, they're already possibly seeing the writing on the wall and is in full damge control mode to make it look as 'positive' as possible. The real answer is that if it's a 5 to 4 vote, it means everyone in the room voting for this did so with partisan intentions (yes, the Republicans too)

 

2) They're reporting a different twist to a poll that's already been reported by stating the majority of people in this country want the bill to stay....the misleading element of this? They basically asked three questions - a) do you want this bill repealed b) do you want this bill to stay and c) would you want this bill to stay if 'appropriate' (not qualified nor room given to qualify) changes were made. Each group was almost evenly distributed by 1/3 for each group. The Liberal media counted choice 'c' as part of those who simply wanted the bill to stay - without quantifying that half of those who supposedly wanted it to 'stay' only wanted that if certain changes were made....and thus, making it appear that people wanted this bill to stay by a 2/3 to 1/3 margin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the media will get their chance to slobber...

 

tomorrow when they argue separability, if it appears the mandate being invalid leaves the rest of the law ok, they will have an orgasm beyond what you might expect for the stimulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't talk about Trayvon, you're a racist.*

 

 

 

The Obama gang got caught in a funny yesterday.

For the purposes of the argument yesterday, the mandate was not a tax.

For today and tomorrow, Obamacare is a tax.

He got called out on that-by BREYER!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*You're a racist anyway, but if you don't talk about Trayvon, your really really a racist.

 

 

Here's another funny he got caught in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) They're reporting a different twist to a poll that's already been reported by stating the majority of people in this country want the bill to stay....the misleading element of this? They basically asked three questions - a) do you want this bill repealed b) do you want this bill to stay and c) would you want this bill to stay if 'appropriate' (not qualified nor room given to qualify) changes were made. Each group was almost evenly distributed by 1/3 for each group. The Liberal media counted choice 'c' as part of those who simply wanted the bill to stay - without quantifying that half of those who supposedly wanted it to 'stay' only wanted that if certain changes were made....and thus, making it appear that people wanted this bill to stay by a 2/3 to 1/3 margin

 

Which station are you watching? CNN is reporting that 51% oppose it and 45% support it. Their legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is predicting that Obamacare is toast. Is that liberal media you're referring to?

 

Scalia basically told them they should have financed it through taxation and it would have passed right through the SC. Obligatory participation, not so much...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.