Ammo For Sale

« « A twist in a media story | Home | More Radar Detector Stuff » »

An admission

You Donít Actually Have to Be Engaged In Commerce For Your Choices to Be Regulated Under the Commerce Clause

7 Responses to “An admission”

  1. John Smith. Says:

    Well isn’t that just stupid. So the judge says that because congress can regulate an illegal substance it has the right to regulate insurance on a local level. Sounds like meth talk to me. What kind of judge cites a drug case to make a decision on forced health insurance purposes??? If he wants to go that route perhaps he should take a look at california and the medical weed route they have taken in the face of federal pressure. Does that me a state can ignore federal rules and the citizens do so at their own peril??? Talk about a quagmire. This judge just made it possible for congress to instruct us to buy anything under this excuse. Not only that they can micromanage the entire surrounding infrastructure in the name of ‘improvement’….His ruling is too far reaching and with some luck will be promptly overturned. Some judges are just steaming crocks of shit…..

  2. Laughingdog Says:

    “if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.Ē

    But there is no interstate market in health insurance.

  3. Tirno Says:

    It’s well past time for the states to put their foot down about FedGov types interpreting the federal constitution as “the words mean whatever we want them to mean”.

    Here’s what I think would be workable: A state law that declares explicitly what the meaning of the Commerce Clause was upon the state’s entry into the union. (That’d be pre-FDR for all states but Alaska and Hawaii, and they might be able to claim back to their understanding based upon their territorial dates). REGULATE: to cause to operate in a reliable manner; INTERSTATE: an activity with actors in different states; COMMERCE: an activity that begins with the offering or seeking of a service or product in exchange for consideration, and ends following the delivery of the service, product and consideration to the consenting actors. Any expansion of the interpretation of this clause without engaging in ratification under Article 5 of the US Constitution constitutes a offense against the sovereignty of the state or individual liberty. Any agent of the federal government that attempts to enforce a federal law, regulation or rule justified by the Commerce Clause in excess of this definition commits a state felony, possibly in conjunction with kidnapping, false imprisonment, extortion, theft, etc charges.

    Then just start filling up jailspace.

    I seriously don’t know why it isn’t a felony in every state to redefine the terms of the Constitution without re-ratification.

  4. Jake Says:

    I wonder how long until they use this ruling to force everyone to buy new shoes (or anything else) every year. After all, not buying new shoes -even if the ones you have are perfectly good – has a negative effect on the interstate shoe market. If enough people do it it’s a substantial effect.

    But there is no interstate market in health insurance.

    There is no (legal) interstate market in marijuana, either, but that hasn’t stopped the feds.

    Seriously, if the feds ban the interstate commerce of any commodity, shouldn’t that preclude federal regulation of intrastate commerce of that commodity? After all, it can’t affect interstate commerce if there is none.

  5. mike w. Says:

    The really scary thing is that ANY economic decision made by an individual would impact interstate commerce.

    Deciding to stay home and blog instead of going to the mall to buy stuff is an economic decision. The judge is saying that my decision to be inactive and NOT participate in the economic market is grounds for forcing me to participate in said market. That is absolutely nuts.

    Hell if I work in shipping and decide to stay home instead of go to work that’s a decision that impacts interstate commerce and, according to the Court, can be regulated. What’s next? Forcing people who work in the private sector to go to work under penalty of law?

    My money is the product of my labor. Forcing me to purchase a product under penalty of law simply because I live in this country essentially amounts to slavery.

  6. Roy in Nipomo Says:

    This isn’t new. In 1942, in Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer was prosecuted for growing “excess” wheat to feed his own cattle. Even though it was not offered for sale, the court said that it affected interstate commerce because the farm would not then buy wheat (which affects “commerce”).

  7. ATLien Says:

    This country is full of sissies and the founding fathers would write us all off as lost forever. there is only one way to stop this, but everyone is too feminine to do what needs to be done.