June 29, 2011

Sixth Circuit: Why, Of Course The Constitution Authorizes The Government To Compel You To Buy Things You Don't Want; It's Right There In Article [Inaudible] Clause [Inaudible]
— Ace

Let's look at the dissent first. Remember, dissent. This position lost.

As it obviously should have. It's so poorly grounded!

If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 565 (“[D]epending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial.”). Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.

Poppycock and crazytalk, obviously.

Let's look at the holding of the court, excerpted at Hot Air.

Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce. Furthermore, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance. Finally, the provision regulates active
participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity. Thus, the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

There's more there. That's just the actual conclusion.

Before the 11th Circuit, a lawyer representing the states suing to rubbish ObamaCare made a good point.

Obama and, it seems, many courts, would like to pretend that while the Constitution generally speaks of enumerated and limited powers -- all other powers, such a the police power, reserved for the people and the states -- that the Commerce Clause generally is a "Take-Back" clause that essentially calls bullshit on everything else in the Constitution.

That is, everything else in the Constitution is about establishing particular powers of the federal government, and, expressly, reserving those not named (or "necessary and proper" to undertake a named power) to the states.

But this new claim is that really there is only one clause that matters in the Constitution, and that is the Commerce Clause, and this one brief clause renders all 4400 other words in the Constitution null and void, because the Commerce Clause says, it is contended, that the federal government may do anything so long as, in the aggregate, it "affects interstate commerce," which, as is often pointed out, applies to everything.

Having sex with your wife? This affects interstate commerce, as you might wind up creating the ultimate economic effect -- a child; a future one-man army of economic activity, labor, investment, and consumption -- and even if you don't, your choice to have sex is a choice not to sample the fruits of interstate commerce, which is affected, then, by your choice to not enter the stream of paid entertainments.

Can we mandate that people have more children? Seems to me we could fix some of the demographic problems with SS and MediCare if only people had more children.

Oh, it's probably much too late for that; but could we have mandated this 20 years ago? Probably, this new ruling says.

At any rate, the anti-ObamaCare lawyer had a simple question:

If the framers of the Constitution meant for this one clause to have such omnipotent power, trumping everything else, establishing well-nigh plenary power of the federal government over every aspect of human existence --

Why did no one seem to think it necessary to add even the most gentle limitation on such a far-reaching power?

In other words, if this Clause means what it is, apparently straight-faced, contended to mean, and therefore is the only real clause in the Constitution at all -- why did no one think to elaborate upon it?

Why all that wasted time on Amendments and specific powers of Congress, the President, and the Courts, when the only real grant of power in the Constitution is the Commerce Clause?

Answers? Take your choice:

1. Because the Founders wanted to disguise an unlimited grant of power to the federal government in a six or seven word clause and so hid Supreme Unchecked Federal Power amid a 4400 word smoke-and-mirrors deception.

2. Um, they never intended it to mean anything like this, but only what it was taken to mean for 150 years, that is, as federal rules-making regarding tariffs and other state-created impediments to unfettered trade of goods across state boundaries.

Your choice.

You know what the Brain Trust at Time Magazine thinks.

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 898 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Yes,we point to the precedent of shmenckmanvs Vandelay.

Posted by: Judge Costanza 6th circuit at June 29, 2011 10:25 AM (QslGJ)

2 So now this all rides on Kennedy?

Posted by: Jack Bauer's Dad at June 29, 2011 10:27 AM (YulS3)

3 This country is so fucked.

Posted by: Jack Bauer's Dad at June 29, 2011 10:28 AM (YulS3)

4 What precedent Jufdge Costanza?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:28 AM (QslGJ)

5

Speaking of our of control lefty bullshit...

Obama Press Conference - False choices and Demagoguery

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at June 29, 2011 10:28 AM (0fzsA)

6

...minimal coverage...

Well since they pointed that out, I've totally changed my mind.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 10:29 AM (jx2j9)

7 What's with all of the italics all of a sudden?

Posted by: socalmike at June 29, 2011 10:29 AM (HTDcI)

8 The Dred Scott decision of its era.  If it stands, conflict is assured.

Posted by: Yoko Ono Performance Art at June 29, 2011 10:29 AM (w41GQ)

9 Schmenkman ahem cough vs VandelaY.

Posted by: Judge Costanza 6th circuit at June 29, 2011 10:29 AM (QslGJ)

10 Off to SCOTUS. Oh, and we're boned, but you knew that.

Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2011 10:30 AM (RD7QR)

11 Damn you ace,you've italicized us!!!

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:30 AM (QslGJ)

12 Well, at least the Constitution doesn't mandate butt-fucking.

Posted by: Wait, what?!?! at June 29, 2011 10:30 AM (Orc9J)

13 The dirty garlic noses have taken over the blog. The ITALICans! - Rev. Wright

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at June 29, 2011 10:30 AM (JKe0g)

14 The power to make Americans buy stuff is found in the "Either Buy Shit Or Go To The Federal Pen" clause of the Constitution. It's not written down, but you can find it floating there in the penumbra.

Posted by: James Madison's Consitutional Hadith, vol. 7, chap. 3 at June 29, 2011 10:31 AM (QKKT0)

15 (cough)bullshit(cough)

Posted by: Bluto at June 29, 2011 10:32 AM (Sfu+M)

16 You know.  The constitution was written a long time ago by people who didn't have time travel or herpes.  They clearly weren't that sophisticated.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 10:32 AM (jx2j9)

17 12 Well, at least the Constitution doesn't mandate butt-fucking. Posted by: Wait, what?!?! at June 29, 2011 03:30 PM (Orc9J) If you choose not to have your fudge packed that means that manufacturers of anal lube are not selling you their product across state lines, which means that it implicates the commerce clause. So spread 'em!

Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2011 10:32 AM (RD7QR)

18 Things are very emphatic with the italics around here...

Posted by: CanaDave at June 29, 2011 10:33 AM (tReCc)

19 13 The dirty garlic noses have taken over the blog. The ITALICans! - Rev. Wright

I will pray for you.

Posted by: Father Guido Sarducci at June 29, 2011 10:33 AM (UOcNk)

20 Wrong place for a serious question, but what the hell: Could conservatives propose a Constitutional Amendment that would define and limit the Commerce Clause?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2011 10:33 AM (PLvLS)

21
If forced to buy hookers and blow, I'm down with that. If it's arugula, Tampons and 2 If by Tea, they can stick it up their squeakholes.

Posted by: Charlie Sheen at June 29, 2011 10:34 AM (Lt/Za)

22 Wait until they require production of children as to ensure the government a body of future taxpayers.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 10:34 AM (MMC8r)

23 Introduce a bill requiring everyone to purchase AND carry a gun and claim you are doing it to reduce defense spending. See if the hippies still love letting the government tell you to buy stuff. To control cost and stuff...

Posted by: BuckNutty at June 29, 2011 10:34 AM (m59PH)

24 What's with all of the italics all of a sudden?

Posted by: socalmike at June 29, 2011 03:29 PM (HTDcI)

Commerce clause... duh!

Posted by: Lib Courts at June 29, 2011 10:34 AM (5wah8)

25 I could have warned y'all.

Posted by: Ollie McClung's BBQ at June 29, 2011 10:34 AM (QKKT0)

26 20 Wrong place for a serious question, but what the hell: Could conservatives propose a Constitutional Amendment that would define and limit the Commerce Clause? Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2011 03:33 PM (PLvLS) My guess is you can propose anything at all at a Constitutional Convention, and would probably get almost nothing.

Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2011 10:35 AM (RD7QR)

27

in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity.

The Constitution imposes no categorical bar on levitation, either.  Let's go ahead and repeal the law of gravity while we're at it.

Posted by: Vashta.Nerada at June 29, 2011 10:35 AM (hiFDo)

28

Thats the thing. If the government wants to get the mandate to stand, they need to get around Lopez and Morrison which specifically limited the commerce clause. Anyone remember how Kennedy voted?

 

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 10:35 AM (NCw5u)

29
I refuse to purchase birth control, and the government needs to stay out of my cooter.

Posted by: Octomom at June 29, 2011 10:35 AM (Lt/Za)

30 God damn these people. God damn these liberals and their unending quest to take power away from the citizen. They will stop at nothing. Disgusting rejects, every last one of them.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 10:36 AM (EPcuy)

31 For all their talk about a "living Constitution," liberals sure are doing their damndest to kill it. Because -- make no mistake about it -- if the individual mandate is constitutional, the Constitution is absolutely dead.

Posted by: Guvnah at June 29, 2011 10:36 AM (Rg8DN)

32

Wait until they require production of children as to ensure the government a body of future taxpayers.

Actually we were thinking about prohibiting the production of children to save the Earth from global warming.  Now where's that red button?

Posted by: Libtard Environmentalists at June 29, 2011 10:36 AM (QKKT0)

33 20Wrong place for a serious question, but what the hell: Could conservatives propose a Constitutional Amendment that would define and limit the Commerce Clause?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2011 03:33 PM (PLvLS)

How 'bout they just stipulate that the Commerce Clause be limited to... you know... commerce?

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 10:36 AM (jx2j9)

34 Your choice.

We have no choice.  We are forced to listen to these idiots who pretend to be more intelligent than we are.  Partisan, evil, demagogic bastards, all.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at June 29, 2011 10:37 AM (ndlFj)

35 The empire strikes back. See  Wickard v. Filburn

Posted by: Dr. O at June 29, 2011 10:37 AM (uw1V8)

36

You can count on this kind of crap continuing until you take the power of the "final word" from the Courts.  Like mandating health insurance, giving the last word to unelected, for-life judges appears nowhere in the Constitution.

A detail--the 2 judges voting to uphold Ocare were appointed by Carter (figures) and Bush 43(facepalm). Dissenter appointed by the only conservative to have occupied the WH since the 20s, Ronaldus Magnus.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 10:37 AM (K/USr)

37
Just wait until I get a shot at the mandate.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at June 29, 2011 10:38 AM (Lt/Za)

38 Good thing the Rs kept Sotomeyer and Kagan off the Supreme Court.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at June 29, 2011 10:38 AM (qwK3S)

39 How about a poll on who's going to make the modern day "House Divided" speech?

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at June 29, 2011 10:39 AM (qwK3S)

40 How 'bout they just stipulate that the Commerce Clause be limited to... you know... commerce?

It's the INTERSTATE Commerce Clause, as well.  That would be a good limit to reassert.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 10:40 AM (MMC8r)

41 The Constitution contains the word 'is' 76 times; therefore, OblablaCare is 76 times more legal than normal.
 
Suck on that, low slopers.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at June 29, 2011 10:41 AM (ENKCw)

42 30 God damn these people. God damn these liberals and their unending quest to take power away from the citizen. They will stop at nothing. Disgusting rejects, every last one of them.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 03:36 PM (EPcuy)

Verily, I damn thee.

Good enough?

Posted by: Thor at June 29, 2011 10:42 AM (NCw5u)

43

The courts need to understand something that I don't think they really understand:

If the federal government can compel us to buy stuff, then we need to kill this government and replace it with a new Constitution.

The courts are committing suicide if they rule that our Constitution can ENSLAVE US to buy things that the government demands us to buy.

I will not be a slave. And I'll work to END any court that forces me into servitude.

Posted by: someguy at June 29, 2011 10:42 AM (iIQ0a)

44 Big surprise coming from the circuit which ruled that a male cop who starts wearing a dress and makeup to work can't be fired as a matter of civil rights.  The Sixth Circuit is trying to give the Ninth a run for its money.

Posted by: ashowalt at June 29, 2011 10:42 AM (ZaQ7q)

45 If 6 was 9... ... you'd get a ruling like this. Pray for the health and sanity of Anthony Kennedy.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM (UlUS4)

46 OT: Lightning strike kills 22 students and one teacher.  But here's what stood out to me...

"I don't know which minister is in charge of the lightning but let the government come up with a statement to inform the country on what is going on and how we can manage it," Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga told Reuters.

Wow.  Shouldn't she know that?

Okay.  Maybe not.

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM (TXKVh)

47 I added some in the middle, about having a child. Since having more kids would have fixed SS and Medicare 20 years ago-- Could the federal government have mandated more childbirths? That would "affect interstate commerce," in a benevolent fashion.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM (nj1bB)

48 WTF?????

Posted by: James Madison at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM (QKKT0)

49

If this is upheld by the USSC, it really will be the final nail in the republic's coffin.  This interpretation of the Commerce Clause gives Congress unfettered, near-absolute power to regulate every aspect of your life as long as they can scratch up some way to say it affects interstate commerce.  Welcome to the Unified Soviet States of America, tovarisch

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM (DrWcr)

50 This is disturbing.

Posted by: John Quincy Adams, son of a Founding Father at June 29, 2011 10:44 AM (6uiF7)

51 Between this and that shameless, shameless press conference by the JEF, it's a bad day to be a freedom-loving American.

Posted by: Lady in Black at June 29, 2011 10:45 AM (kOtPb)

52 46 I'm the Minister in charge of Earthquakes,so it's not my fault.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:45 AM (QslGJ)

53 Could the federal government have mandated more childbirths?

Wish I would have thought of that.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 10:45 AM (MMC8r)

54 So that's what an orgasm feels like.
 
Thanks 6th Circuit.

Posted by: Elena Kagan at June 29, 2011 10:46 AM (ENKCw)

55 50 This is disturbing.

Not me.

Posted by: That guy with his head waaaay up his ass at June 29, 2011 10:46 AM (TXKVh)

56

Did they address the fact that they fettered insurance companies by NOT allowing them to offer policies across state lines?  What about that?  That's in direct conflict with the Commerce Clause -- it prevents them from doing business across state lines.

AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!11!!!!!!!1!!!!

Posted by: Biblio at June 29, 2011 10:48 AM (y5VNb)

57 If this is the way the left wants it, just wait until we mandate they have to buy bibles and give money to a church...

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (FkKjr)

58 If the States want to put pressure on the Federal Courts they need to get serious - pass a common, tightly worded Art 5 call on the Commerce Clause; start getting close to 34 states passing it and the Feds will notice.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (WkuV6)

59
The possibilities for chicanery are endless.  For instance, in a recession with large real estate inventories, the government could mandate all citizens with assets greater than 1M must purchase an additional home to relieve the oversupply. 


Posted by: Fish the Impaler at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (Lt/Za)

60 So, what if I still don't get your insurance? Whatchagonnado?

Posted by: John Galt at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (VndSC)

61

Yeah, I said "fettered."

Posted by: Biblio at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (y5VNb)

62

A trip down memory lane....

"Here, as there, Congress has determined for itself that refusals of service to Negroes have imposed burdens both upon the interstate flow of food and upon the movement of products generally. Of course, the mere fact that Congress has said when particular activity shall be deemed to affect commerce does not preclude further examination by this Court. But where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end." (Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) 379 U.S. 294, 303-04 [85 S.Ct. 377, 383, 13 L.Ed.2d 290].)

 

It's hard to argue against forcing some pissant roadhouse to serve black people.  You just have to step onto a slippery slope to do it.

Posted by: Cicero at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (QKKT0)

63

If this is upheld by the USSC, it really will be the final nail in the republic's coffin. 

Could not agree more. USSC upholds this, and it will not, NOT, end well. At all. For anyone.

Costa Rica, si. Pura Vida, indeed.

Posted by: Chariots of Toast at June 29, 2011 10:49 AM (tk5O7)

64 Obamacare is a carbon tax, so life itself is subject to taxation.

Posted by: Alfred E. Gorman at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (wOaLi)

65 47 I added some in the middle, about having a child.

Since having more kids would have fixed SS and Medicare 20 years ago--

Could the federal government have mandated more childbirths?

That would "affect interstate commerce," in a benevolent fashion.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 03:43 PM (nj1bB)

Yes, but that would effected a woman's right to choose which would have meant less contraceptives and abortions which would have been an infringement on the right to privacy. Of course this would also effect commerce.

My simple proposition is that we could simply mandate all women be sent to me so that I may choose who to best fix social security with, whilst we're pissing on the constitution anyway. I believe given a night with Megan Fox, Jessica Alba, and Scarlett Johannsen we'll be on the way towards making up for any social security shortfalls. Best part is they're all liberals anyway so they won't mind helping out.

Posted by: Thor at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (NCw5u)

66 The Sixth Circuit is trying to give the Ninth a run for its money.

@45 If 6 was 9...

... you'd get a ruling like this.

That's what I'm saying.  6 is 9.  Or at least wants to be.

Posted by: ashowalt at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (ZaQ7q)

67 61 Isn't that a Greek cheese??

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (QslGJ)

68 and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity.

This is the declaration of the new Caesar.

Impeachment for the judges who support this view.  They are dangerous on the bench.

Of course, the cowards in Congress would never think to even try to impeach these retards - who are clearly ignorant of the Constitution and a major threat to it.  Of course, even if they got impeached, they'd just show up in Congress two years later as dem reps.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (G/MYk)

69 Actually, I came first. For a good reason.

Posted by: 2nd Amendment at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (VndSC)

70 Hey, I know, let's vote for a RINO for President because he can win. That Romney guy will message Obamacare so we it's more palatable to the center and the left. You that believe in freedom, Fuck You.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 10:50 AM (NtTkA)

71 Wrong place for a serious question, but what the hell: Could conservatives propose a Constitutional Amendment that would define and limit the Commerce Clause?
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale

Randy Barnett has suggested to include such a thing inside his proposed Bill of Federalism. He has some posts at Volokh Conspiracy (website is down right now I think) explaining a novel strategy to pass them. 2/3 of the States would pass duplicate bill calling for the Con/Con with language that disallows any amendments or alterations and declares the Con/Con immediately closed after passage. 

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 29, 2011 10:51 AM (qaU+h)

72 Stick a fork in America. It's fucking over. It was a nice 200 year run. Nice little experiment in self-government.

Why should I feel in loyalty to America anymore? Seriously. I'm proud to have played my tiny role in this noble, if failed, experiment. But I have no loyalty to this statist leviathon we have turned into.

I feel no kinship, no brotherhood to these leftist Obama fucktards that lord over us. No more than if I was some vassal of a distant king.

They can control my life. Compel my behavior with the threat of force and jail.

Fine. I'll comply. I have to. There's nothing I can do about it. But fuck 'em. I am nothing more to them than some Russian peasant was to the tsar.

The United States of America is increasingly just some piece of shit geography I happened to be born in and who's rulers can control me at their whim. Fine. I will be loyal to my friends and family. I will try and help those whose ideals I share. But the country as whole? The ruling class? The diversity nazis that try and screw over my economic opportunities? The eco-nazis who try and impoverish me and lower my standard of living?  Fuck 'em.

They have shown no respect to me or my family. They have shown no loyalty to me. I no longer believe in their legitimacy.

I'll tend my garden and try and keep my head down and not incur the wrath of tsar, but that's it. The word countrymen is increasingly meaningless to me. We have no shared values, no shared ideals.

America is a meaningless concept to me these days.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 29, 2011 10:52 AM (QcFbt)

73 IF the USSC upholds this, conservatives had damn well better ride the wave of outrage and capture both the Senate and the White House in the next election, and start using this absolute power to rebuild America from the ground up whether the Lefties like it or not--- in the name of interstate commerce, of course.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 10:52 AM (MMC8r)

74 47 I added some in the middle, about having a child.

Since having more kids would have fixed SS and Medicare 20 years ago--

Could the federal government have mandated more childbirths?

That would "affect interstate commerce," in a benevolent fashion.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 03:43 PM (nj1bB)

All those hysterically-screaming pro-abortionists said if I voted for John McCain womens' uteri would be commandeered by the state...

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2011 10:52 AM (v+QvA)

75 I'd feel more comfortable commenting if I knew what Dagny thought. She's my moral compass.

Posted by: the Charlie Daniels of the torque wrench at June 29, 2011 10:54 AM (le5qc)

76 50 - This is great!

Posted by: Barack Obama, son-of-a-bitch at June 29, 2011 10:54 AM (HjxoE)

77 I hope the Supreme Court's first big pending Obamacare case and Romney's nomination intersect, so the "but—judges!" crowd can fully discredit themselves.

More fully.

Posted by: oblig. at June 29, 2011 10:54 AM (xvZW9)

78

How 'bout they just stipulate that the Commerce Clause be limited to... you know... commerce?

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 03:36 PM (jx2j9)

You just don't understand emanations and penumbras, you sloped-forehead uneducated flyover state hick. 

Posted by: David "Crack's a helluva drug!" Carr at June 29, 2011 10:55 AM (v+QvA)

79 I think we need to move a complete restructuring of the Federal Court system up the legislative docket. Reorganize it completely, get rid of regional circuits, specialize by case load, and re-appoint judges into the the new seats.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2011 10:55 AM (WkuV6)

80 No way this stands. I hope.

Posted by: brak at June 29, 2011 10:55 AM (GIP38)

81 That's a lot of reading and stuff.  Can't we just redo the Constitution?

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:56 AM (OhYCU)

82 Wrong place for a serious question, but what the hell: Could conservatives propose a Constitutional Amendment that would define and limit the Commerce Clause?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale

Looking at this insane ruling, don't you get it?  It doesn't matter what anyone writes into the Constitution.  These people are talkign about the lack of prohibition on regulating inactivity!  You can't write anything that would hold up to such insane and dishonest people.  It does not matter what is written.  The left is going to do whatever they want ... or FEEL they should do (rule of Empathy and all, which the GOP confirmed without any real argument ... thanks, guys).

This goes for any ideas about a balanced budget amendment.  If that happened, everything would be moved off-budget or called an emergency.  Or some international group will instruct the US to deficit spend, and the US will have to comply (as with the SPR).

It is impossible to live a normal life with such leftists anywhere near power.  This is why this nation is destined to split - at least if any bit of the American creed wants to survive, because this nation isn't carrying it anymore.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 10:56 AM (G/MYk)

83 75 You can buy your own at Cabela's.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:56 AM (QslGJ)

84

Not to be a dick here, but I seem to be on the end of arguing that the 64 Civil rights act was unconstitutional for this very reason whenever Rand Paul got in trouble for it.

If you want to be a rascist asshole on your own time, ain't the governments business.

Its not pro-rascist, its anti-thought police.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 10:56 AM (NCw5u)

85 56--But the Commerce Clause does permit Congress to regulate fetter interstate commerce, which you are correct, they have done in this field and others.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 10:57 AM (K/USr)

86 I think if the founders had thought the Commerce Clause would have been used in this way they would have written it completely different.  Just like I think that if they had thought fulltime politician was a job you could have made your living on they would have stuck term limits in.  These were men making a government to keep it as out of the way of their lives as possible with a definite disdain for a nobility class.

Posted by: buzzion at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (oVQFe)

87 68  Yeah, just like this ruling was.

Posted by: Biblio at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (y5VNb)

88 We are all screwed now.

Posted by: NC Ref at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (Q8v6h)

89

"L'État, c'est moi"

Posted by: King Barry I "Piehole" at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (QKKT0)

90 68 61 Isn't that a Greek cheese?? Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 03:50 PM (QslGJ) No, that's fetid.

Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (RD7QR)

91 Like I said before, if Obamacare is constitutional then there is no bar to outlawing abortion. A kraken vs a medusa, judicially speaking a TITAN VS A TITAN!

Posted by: Prof. Heinz Doofensmirtz at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (/Atj9)

92
Could the federal government have mandated more childbirths?

Consider it an emanation from Kelo.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 10:59 AM (MMC8r)

93 They can control my life. Compel my behavior with the threat of force and jail.

If it helps you through the acceptance stage, Jesus was a democrat.

Posted by: Libtard Grief Counselor at June 29, 2011 10:59 AM (wOaLi)

94 I read the Wikipedia entry on Jeffrey Sutton, the Bush appointee. 

Former Scalia clerk, took 2 years to confirm him.  I never would have expected such a thing from such a guy.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 10:59 AM (T0NGe)

95 I'm not surprised.

Posted by: Roscoe Filburn at June 29, 2011 10:59 AM (ZaQ7q)

96 IF the USSC upholds this, conservatives had damn well better ride the wave of outrage and capture both the Senate and the White House in the next election, and start using this absolute power to rebuild America from the ground up whether the Lefties like it or not--- in the name of interstate commerce, of course.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 03:52 PM (MMC8r)

Meh.  The GOP could do away with ObamaCare right now, as part of raising the debt-limit.  The GOP establishment are asswipes, though.

Don't count on the GOP doing anything in the future.  They won't.  Even if they held Congress and the White House.  Now is the time.  The debt limit is the point.  If they don't do it now (especially in light of this insane decision) then they never will. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 11:00 AM (G/MYk)

97 If it helps you through the acceptance stage, Jesus was a democrat, you sloped forehead type. Posted by: Libtard Grief Counselor at June 29, 2011 03:59 PM (wOaLi) FIFY.

Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2011 11:00 AM (RD7QR)

98 Because -- make no mistake about it -- if the individual mandate is constitutional, the Constitution is absolutely dead.

Posted by: Guvnah at June 29, 2011 03:36 PM (Rg8DN)

 

That's why I've already researched and decided which country I'll move to when that death comes.  The only other way I'd stay around afterwards is if a strong movement arose for sucession from DC.  I think, though, that most people nowdays don't want to make that sacrifice and would just let it die. 

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2011 11:01 AM (oj5vc)

99 If I donate to the right person, can't I just get a waiver to the Commerce Clause?

Posted by: Roy at June 29, 2011 11:02 AM (VndSC)

100 "and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity." ASSHOLE! It is not OUR job to identify a categorical bar. It is YOUR job to identify an enumerated power. That's how this thing works.

Posted by: Guvnah at June 29, 2011 11:02 AM (Rg8DN)

101 Don't count on the GOP doing anything in the future.  They won't.

That's why I said 'conservatives,' not 'Republicans.'

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 11:02 AM (MMC8r)

102 If you cannot afford a wife for bearing the Federally mandated minimum number of children, one will be appointed for you.

Posted by: Bob Saget at June 29, 2011 11:02 AM (F/4zf)

103 So where are you headed, Soona... and what made you pick that place?

Posted by: Guvnah at June 29, 2011 11:03 AM (Rg8DN)

104 A future Republican government could easily justify a economic necessity for a number of children above the replacement ratio or you pay a "fee" - a fecundity fee to support retirement programs, how is voting not an economic activity - a federal law to mandate all polling places must close promptly at five, cant have volunteers working overtime, etc. The Commerce Clause, Withholding, and the Direct Election of Senators all need revision.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2011 11:04 AM (WkuV6)

105 Wait, aren't these guys lawyers?  Is there a pattern here?

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 11:04 AM (OhYCU)

106 102 If you cannot afford a wife for bearing the Federally mandated minimum number of children, one will be appointed for you.

That could be good or bad.

Posted by: EC at June 29, 2011 11:04 AM (GQ8sn)

107 After watching Boehner act all smug on Hannity yesterday, and wanting to pimp hand him repeatedly I might add, we are fucking doomed.


Posted by: Rooster Cogburn at June 29, 2011 11:05 AM (EL+OC)

108 Honestly I don't see what the big deal is.  I'm still Speaker.

Posted by: John Boehner at June 29, 2011 11:05 AM (FkKjr)

109 91 Like I said before, if Obamacare is constitutional then there is no bar to outlawing abortion. A kraken vs a medusa, judicially speaking a TITAN VS A TITAN!

Posted by: Prof. Heinz Doofensmirtz at June 29, 2011 03:58 PM (/Atj9)

Speaking of a Titan vs. a Titan, what about Roe as a basis for holding Obamacare unconstitutional. Roe stood for the proposition that control of a doctors descisions violated the patients right to privacy. I seem to recall the government setting up a database (electronic records) partnered with GE (fuck you with a pineapple and the barbed cock of satan who I heard has herpes and crabs Jeffery Imhelt). Include this with the death panel or whatever making descisions as to treatment.

Wouldn't this be a violation of a patients right to privacy under Roe?

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 11:06 AM (NCw5u)

110 Damn Ace, after mowing the grass there is now a Constitution question. After I am getting drunk enough I can't type anymore.

Mostly got the old movies cranked up and lurking.

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2011 11:06 AM (M9Ie6)

111 That's why I said 'conservatives,' not 'Republicans.'

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 04:02 PM (MMC8r)


That's me.  Had to renew my driver's license because I'm old, and changing my registration from Republican to Independent was so easy, thanks to that stupid motor voter law.

Don't know why it took me so long to quit the Republican party.  Of course, I'll end up still voting for them because they're a little more conservative than the communists running the country now.

Posted by: NC Ref at June 29, 2011 11:07 AM (Q8v6h)

112 22 Wait until they require production of children as to ensure the government a body of future taxpayers.
Don't worry about that....the Dems already have that taken care of. THAT'S the madness behind their "ignore all the immigration laws and border security  and let ALL the illegal imigrants in because sooner or later they'll all vote Democrat".

Posted by: MrObvious at June 29, 2011 11:08 AM (H87Hu)

113 in my humble opinion this all mental masturbation until the supreme court rules. Give me a call

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 29, 2011 11:08 AM (5jbD3)

114 Again I ask:  At what point do we get to say "the social contract has been violated and our consent is hereby withdrawn"?

Posted by: LibertarianJim at June 29, 2011 11:08 AM (PReJ3)

115 Honestly I don't see what the big deal is.  I'm still Speaker.

And still building up some Long Form credentials, I see.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 11:08 AM (OhYCU)

116

72--We have no shared values, no shared ideals.

In a few words, that is why constitutional jurisprudence is such a joke. We don't agree on the basics. the contract that supposedly lays out the terms of the union has no meaning; or rather, it means what our side wants it to mean, the others be damned.

that is probably also why a Const. Conv. would fail to produce anything useful; although, being out of options, I think we may as well take a shot at it.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 11:09 AM (K/USr)

117 Well, at least the Constitution doesn't mandate butt-fucking. Posted by: Wait, what?!?! at June 29, 2011 03:30 PM (Orc9J) Funny thing, though... Post Obamacare, it could very well prohibit butt-fucking, Lawrence v. Texas notwithstanding. It is beyond question that anal sex is an unhealthy activity, and to the extent that such an activity "in the aggregate" (ewww) causes the expenditure of "scarce" healthcare resources, the government would have a rational basis for re-imposing sodomy bans.

Posted by: Guvnah at June 29, 2011 11:09 AM (Rg8DN)

118 America is a meaningless concept to me these days.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 29, 2011 03:52 PM (QcFbt)

And the left in general and Obama in particular attain one more tiny victory among millions...

Because this is what they want. They want you to quit.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:09 AM (bxiXv)

119 Does anyone still swear oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Or did that go by the wayside?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:10 AM (bxiXv)

120 enemies

What do you mean by this?

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 11:11 AM (OhYCU)

121

that is probably also why a Const. Conv. would fail to produce anything useful; although, being out of options, I think we may as well take a shot at it.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 04:09 PM (K/USr)

At the risk of having to denounce myself, such an event now would probably be adequately described as a "Chinese Fire Drill."

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:11 AM (bxiXv)

122 guvnah, when talking about sex, please use clinical terms and not profanity.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 11:13 AM (nj1bB)

123

Another example of an opinion written in reverse order:

1.     Rule that whatever hack-job political result I want is Constitutional

2.     Come up with rationale justifying the result (even if it sounds like utter bullshit).

Just like Madison wanted it, I'm sure.  

Judicial review would only work properly if it was coupled with the judiciary having to stand for election.  Instead, these unaccountable Solons can come up with half-assed sophistry to justify any result.  

They certainly aren't acting to check or balance anyone's power as things stand now.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 29, 2011 11:13 AM (jxW5N)

124 93 They can control my life. Compel my behavior with the threat of force and jail.

If it helps you through the acceptance stage, Jesus was a democrat.

Posted by: Libtard Grief Counselor at June 29, 2011 03:59 PM (wOaLi)

 

Jesus was NOT a democrat! .....he was a jew!

.....Totally different religion!

Posted by: MrObvious at June 29, 2011 11:14 AM (H87Hu)

125 So where are you headed, Soona... and what made you pick that place?

Posted by: Guvnah at June 29, 2011 04:03 PM (Rg8DN)

 

All I'll say is that it's far far away.  The reason I chose it was the fact it's cheap enough  to live well on a SS check (as long as they last), but just western enough to feel at home. 

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2011 11:14 AM (oj5vc)

126

Because this is what they want. They want you to quit.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:09 PM (bxiXv)

So does the GOP. 

At some point, though, this nation is beyond repair.  We got dangerously close to it midway through 2009 and probably sailed past it, now.  We have the House, have had several MUST-PASS pieces of budgeting, and have done ... nothing of value.  NOTHING.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 11:14 AM (G/MYk)

127 119, I'm here. So are the many orgs spread out across the country. Military, active and inactive, LEO's active and inactive. Citizens who have sought advanced training. We are here, there is a line. We know what it is, and so do they.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 11:15 AM (NtTkA)

128 121 Mero - I'm with you.  A 2011 Constitution Convention would produce something worthy of Orwell.  Or Lovecraft.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 29, 2011 11:16 AM (jxW5N)

129 So does the GOP.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...let's not go quitting.  Vote for us, just keep your mouth shut after you do.

Posted by: John Boehner at June 29, 2011 11:17 AM (FkKjr)

130 127 119, I'm here. So are the many orgs spread out across the country. Military, active and inactive, LEO's active and inactive. Citizens who have sought advanced training. We are here, there is a line. We know what it is, and so do they.

RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!!

Posted by: EC at June 29, 2011 11:17 AM (GQ8sn)

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 11:18 AM (jx2j9)

132 Obama is more conservative than Reagan, if only because he pushed through sensible, reform of our health care system that you wingnuts wouldnt event consider while in power. Burke would agree also.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at June 29, 2011 11:19 AM (6uiF7)

133 "Chinese Fire Drill."

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:11 PM (bxiXv)

No longer a funny simile. See Spratley Islands, South China Sea.

Posted by: Cicerokid. at June 29, 2011 11:19 AM (4Fz35)

134 ace, this ruling is a good example of why I said in the last thread that America needs to be presented with the stark question in 2012.  It's time to find out where this nation stands.  There is nothing emotional in this.  It is the most logical course.  The only problem is that the answer might be pretty repulsive and disheartening.  But we need to know if America actually wants to survive, or not.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 11:19 AM (G/MYk)

135 Does anyone still swear oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Or did that go by the wayside?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:10 PM (bxiXv)

 

I did and would still abide by it, but I'm also practical.  Ain't going to defend anything if no one wants to watch my six. 

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2011 11:20 AM (oj5vc)

136 I did and would still abide by it, but I'm also practical. Ain't going to defend anything if no one wants to watch my six. Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2011 04:20 PM (oj5vc) I got your six

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 29, 2011 11:20 AM (5jbD3)

137 your choice to have sex is a choice not to sample the fruits of interstate commerce, which is affected, then, by your choice to not enter the stream of paid entertainments.

So you're saying that we should go out and get a hooker instead of sleeping with our wives....

This is an "interstate commerce" I can get down with.

Posted by: Iron Balls McGinty at June 29, 2011 11:21 AM (Gkhxf)

138 Wait my children! The time will come!

Posted by: Lord Humungous 2012 at June 29, 2011 11:21 AM (j0yaf)

139 120enemies

What do you mean by this?

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 04:11 PM (OhYCU)

You know, spelling on the internet is so bad it makes me question my own spelling. I had to double-check to make sure I spelled it right and you weren't questioning spelling or grammar - and I was an Lit major, it's sad.

The point being that if a court affirms or denies law based on deliberately wrong reading or interpretation of clear and heavily-documented Constitutional provisions, they are no friend of the Constitution.

Some states or principalities have impeachment provision, some have recalls, in some cases you have to apply political and public pressure.

Or, I guess we could just complain on a blog, that might work as well. Maybe less likely (obviously needed to let us know, because the MBM is inadequate).

In other words, *who* can do *what* about this lawless court?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:21 AM (bxiXv)

140 Introduce a bill requiring everyone to purchase AND carry a gun and claim you are doing it to reduce defense spending.

That's legal. See Article One, Section 8; and the Second Militia Act of 1792.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at June 29, 2011 11:23 AM (bjRNS)

141 Soona, you better get moving soona rather than later. New currency controls take effect in 2013. Thirty percent witholding on all money transfers to foreign banks. Enjoy!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 11:23 AM (lbo6/)

142 ...in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity...
_________

You have no constitutional right to be lazy. Now get out there and Jazzercise!

Posted by: FLOTUS at June 29, 2011 11:23 AM (IrbU4)

143 This ruling is number 10,374 why, after being a lawyer for 33 years, I have completely lost all faith in the legal system. It is a sham.

Posted by: real joe at June 29, 2011 11:24 AM (SlSoO)

144

No longer a funny simile. See Spratley Islands, South China Sea.

Posted by: Cicerokid. at June 29, 2011 04:19 PM (4Fz35)

Sorry, I was trying to think of a synonym that didn't have profanity in it, for our new blogular focus on alternatives to profanity and all that stuff that goes along with shinola.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:24 AM (bxiXv)

145 How could so many of these judges be in power? In a courtroom, sure, there's right and wrong, innocent or guilty. But there should not be criminally wrong judges in place. Unless, of course, we want to destroy the country. Oh, now I get it...

Posted by: t-bird at June 29, 2011 11:24 AM (FcR7P)

146

Rational basis?  This was reviewed under the rational basis test?  Fuck that, I'm going to let the Lemon test eat me. 

Seriously, if the Commerce Clause says what current precedent says that it says, then there is no limit on federal power whatsoever.

So.  Any particular place I should consider moving to when I move to the Republic of Texas?

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2011 11:25 AM (VtjlW)

147 It's the INTERSTATE Commerce Clause, as well. That would be a good limit to reassert.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 03:40 PM (MMC8r)

Ding ding ding... the player wins a Kepie Doll...

The Qualifier the Founders put in was the word INTERSTATE... ie... Congress has the power to regulate Commerce which crosses STATE Lines... not commerce WITHIN a State, OR the LACK of Commerce.

The Courts decided that All Commerce affected Interstate Commerce which somehow gave the US Congress COMPLETE control... which is why we are in this mess.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 11:25 AM (NtXW4)

148 143 This ruling is number 10,374 why, after being a lawyer for 33 years, I have completely lost all faith in the legal system. It is a sham.

Posted by: real joe at June 29, 2011 04:24 PM (SlSoO)

We need a single-payer legal system. That way all the lawyers will be working for the same boss, it will simplify the process.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:26 AM (bxiXv)

149 135 Does anyone still swear oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Or did that go by the wayside?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:10 PM (bxiXv)

I did. Started taking my oath in the first grade.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.

The next civil war won't be so pretty, without uniforms and all.

Posted by: Cicerokid. at June 29, 2011 11:26 AM (4Fz35)

150

The Yahoo headline:

 

Bush appointed judge upholds Obama's health care law.

 

And so in the MFM's tiny little mind this makes this a more significant ruling than any of other rulings.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2011 11:27 AM (1Jaio)

151

It's not enough for me to ask What Would Jesus Do? and then personally reflect.  I have to ask What Would Be The Best Decision For The Public Good? for every single decision I make...and then I don't even get to answer that for myself.  Someone in D.C. does.  That's where this goes.  We are truly boned.

Posted by: MostlyRight at June 29, 2011 11:27 AM (ZG8Ti)

152

So. Any particular place I should consider moving to when I move to the Republic of Texas?

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2011 04:25 PM (VtjlW)

Well, you can start by scratching Austin off your list.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:27 AM (bxiXv)

153

In other words, *who* can do *what* about this lawless court? Posted by: Merovign


The plus-sized female has yet to clear her throat. To wit:

"The more important point was made by Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn, who noted that “the 6th Circuit is the first of three appeals panels expected to issue rulings on the law this summer.” We will know more after the other rulings later this summer, and the real resolution on this will not come until we hear from the Supreme Court. In the meantime, nothing has changed the fact the Obama health-care law is expensive, intrusive, and continues to face significant challenges on the political, legislative, and judicial fronts."

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 29, 2011 11:27 AM (qaU+h)

154 Soona, you better get moving soona rather than later. New currency controls take effect in 2013. Thirty percent witholding on all money transfers to foreign banks.

Enjoy!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 04:23 PM (lbo6/)

 

There's ways of getting around that.  Cooperative relatives are a boon to survival.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2011 11:27 AM (oj5vc)

155 134 ace, this ruling is a good example of why I said in the last thread that America needs to be presented with the stark question in 2012.  It's time to find out where this nation stands.  There is nothing emotional in this.  It is the most logical course.  The only problem is that the answer might be pretty repulsive and disheartening.  But we need to know if America actually wants to survive, or not.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 04:19 PM (G/MYk)

I believe that the problem is that the stark question will still tell you nothing and that is whats fundementally wrong with the county. Too many of your fellow voters are too impressed with shiny lights and too worried about the Kardashian wedding to have formed an opinion one way or another.

Were talking philosophy, and the relationship between man and government here, they're watching Springer and voting based on identity, freebies, and styrofoam columns.

I think that the education system has failed in such a manner that a large portion of the electorate is too uninformed to vote. Add in motor voter laws and the unfettered expansion of the franchise to persons who have no skin in teh game, and you have the genisis of this country's woes.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 11:28 AM (NCw5u)

156

The next civil war won't be so pretty, without uniforms and all.

Posted by: Cicerokid. at June 29, 2011 04:26 PM (4Fz35)

I have a uniform.

It has a cape.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:28 AM (bxiXv)

157 Holy shit. There are eight women in this office six feet or taller. This intimidation boner is getting uncomfortable.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 11:28 AM (lbo6/)

158 Oh joy! at last I will have insurance...that you Obama!

Posted by: Aging self-employed artiste at June 29, 2011 11:28 AM (GdalM)

159 And so in the MFM's tiny little mind this makes this a more significant ruling than any of other rulings. Yes and it also states the obvious. It's not R's or D's. It's about the power of progressives.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 11:29 AM (NtTkA)

160 How things could have been with Bork on the Court, sigh ...

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2011 11:29 AM (WkuV6)

161 I added some in the middle, about having a child.

Since having more kids would have fixed SS and Medicare 20 years ago--

Could the federal government have mandated more childbirths?

That would "affect interstate commerce," in a benevolent fashion.

Posted by: ace

So IF I read this right, we can use th ecommerce clause to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Wouldn't that be the ultimate mindfuck to the leftards.

Posted by: todler at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (fPOY0)

162 Why all that wasted time on Amendments and specific powers of Congress, the President, and the Courts, when the only real grant of power in the Constitution is the Commerce Clause? Answers? Take your choice: ... 2. Um, they never intended it to mean anything like this, but only what it was taken to mean for 150 years, that is, as federal rules-making regarding tariffs and other state-created impediments to unfettered trade of goods across state boundaries. That's what they may have intended the clause to mean but, since the constitution is a living document, fuck you.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (KOAYS)

163 What the Founders really wanted was capricious, arbitrary rule. A monarchy under a foreign king. Taxation as political retribution. You'd think they'd be thanking me.

Posted by: Constitutional Teaching Assistant Barack Obama at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (FcR7P)

164 There are eight women in this office six feet or taller. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (lbo6/) "Until you've gotten a blow job from..." Oh right line, wrong movie

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (5jbD3)

165 It's the INTERSTATE Commerce Clause, as well. That would be a good limit to reassert.

It's been a long time since the SC concluded that purely intrastate activities are within the scope of commerce clause regulation based on the notion that they affect interstate commerce.  The supreme court has been blatantly abusing this clause fairly consistently since 1937, but began to do it well before that.

Posted by: ashowalt at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (ZaQ7q)

166

Sorry, I was trying to think of a synonym that didn't have profanity in it, for our new blogular focus on alternatives to profanity and all that stuff that goes along with shinola.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:24 PM (bxiXv)

Let's from here agree to call all such events a "Joe Biden".

Posted by: Cicerokid. at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (4Fz35)

167

I read this someplace...

 

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism...

Seems like it was a big reason for something somewere. There were a bunch of others that were on target but that one always brings the point back in perspective.

The simple question of; if this is legal, what isn't?
A better question, if the legislature is intent on removing our freedoms, and the executive is more than happy to comply, in fact wholy supports removing even more if it could, and the courts refuse to protect them, prefering instead to believe the government may do whatever it wants, what political recourse does that leave for those seeking not to live under the despotic dictate of the many? Have they all been exhausted at that point?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (0q2P7)

168

I have a uniform.

It has a cape.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (bxiXv)

No Capes!

Posted by: Edna at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (NtXW4)

169

The courts need to understand something that I don't think they really understand:

If the federal government can compel us to buy stuff, then we need to kill this government and replace it with a new Constitution.

The courts are committing suicide if they rule that our Constitution can ENSLAVE US to buy things that the government demands us to buy.

I will not be a slave. And I'll work to END any court that forces me into servitude.

 

I used to laugh at crazies that went on rants like this. WTF? I'm starting to agree with them.

Posted by: Max Power at June 29, 2011 11:32 AM (q177U)

170 Unless you can fly, Scrap the cape. It limits access to your untility belt

Posted by: Batman at June 29, 2011 11:32 AM (NtTkA)

171 158 Oh joy! at last I will have insurance...that you Obama!

Posted by: Aging self-employed artiste at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (GdalM)

Oooh, sorry, you failed this year's cost/benefit analysis. The only approved treatment for you is euthanasia.

Posted by: Death Panel #12799104b at June 29, 2011 11:32 AM (Nq/UF)

172 .. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, to To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States with the specific approval of a majority of State legislatures , and with the Indian tribes;

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2011 11:33 AM (WkuV6)

173

Posted by: ashowalt at June 29, 2011 04:30 PM (ZaQ7q)

Yea, when the Supremes said a guy could not grow feed for his own chickens, on his own land, without it being "interstate commerce"... it pretty much jumped the Shark...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 11:33 AM (NtXW4)

174 Because this is what they want. They want you to quit. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:09 PM ... Ok. They "win". I will be over there, tending the garden with Clubber Lang and the rest of the "losers". Speaking for myself, however, 'quit' in all encompassing. I'm not paying, I my not buying, I ain't doing anything but taking care of myself. Sure, they can send over the Dept. of Education SWAT team and try to arrest me for being intentionally broke and not paying into anything or buying anything, and we'll have a grand 'ol time with it in their kangaroo court... if they can find me and catch me then explain what law I broke for not spending money that I don't have. Gardens can sustain themselves and meat off the hoof costs nothing but time. I'm sure that they'll pay "king's deer" laws and confiscate my garden eventually. So be it. We'll see if they can manage to do it before their "civilization" collapses on their heads. If they lock me up, so be it. Prison will be an entertaining place once all the productive people are behind bars, laughing our asses off while the leeches try to figure out how to produce and pay for the room, board, and cable TV that they decided we're entitled to. No worries. They're already setting loose all the murders, rapists, and theives in favor of locking up evil capitalists. We'll have the place to ourselves. Once civilizations breaks down completely, the douchebags in charge will be out there will all the worst people in society and we'll be in our comfy, high security building, planting new gardens in the yards. They'll give us the bars to keep them out.

Posted by: Joe Biden at June 29, 2011 11:33 AM (3nrx7)

175 170, Dammit Robin, I'll write my own posts thank you. UTILITY BELT.

Posted by: Batman at June 29, 2011 11:33 AM (NtTkA)

176 OT You might want to take a look at this commodity price chart for gasoline, just in case you were holding off a few days for cheaper prices. (ZH linky) Up 26 cents in 3 days.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2011 11:33 AM (ENKCw)

177 Off damn sock. Ruined a perfectly TLDR rant.

Posted by: Damiano at June 29, 2011 11:34 AM (3nrx7)

178

No Capes!

Posted by: Edna

ROFLMAOOO

no capes, don't want to get sucked into a jet engine.

Posted by: todler at June 29, 2011 11:35 AM (fPOY0)

179

Ok. They "win". I will be over there, tending the garden with Clubber Lang and the rest of the "losers".

Uh... yeah... really.... so will I!

Are you reading this DHS??? Really... nothing to see here... nope, won't do a thing... these are not the droids you are looking for...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 11:36 AM (NtXW4)

180 157 Holy shit. There are eight women in this office six feet or taller.

This intimidation boner is getting uncomfortable.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (lbo6/)

I like tall ladies and I cannot lie

All babes should be super-sized

Is that a Maxi miniskirt she's wearing?

I'm hooked and I can't stop staring!

I like 'em long, and strong,

and I'm down to get the friction on!


Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:36 AM (bxiXv)

181

I believe that the problem is that the stark question will still tell you nothing and that is whats fundementally wrong with the county. Too many of your fellow voters are too impressed with shiny lights and too worried about the Kardashian wedding to have formed an opinion one way or another.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (NCw5u)

That's an answer in itself, though, that America just doesn't care ... of the repulsive and disheartening type, but an answer, nonetheless.  If that is what it is, then this Republic couldn't survive for much longer and it would be best to start thinking of jettisoning, soon, before the SreallyHTF.  The American Constitutional Republic is waiting to appear and carry on the American creed ...

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 11:37 AM (G/MYk)

182

I guess this means that if companies don't start hiring, Obama can throw the CEOs in jail?  I mean, what affects commerce more than people earning money so they can buy shit?

Our country will truly be lost if this crap stands.

Posted by: Marmo the Greater at June 29, 2011 11:37 AM (InrkQ)

183

I think that the education system has failed in such a manner that a large portion of the electorate is too uninformed to vote. Add in motor voter laws and the unfettered expansion of the franchise to persons who have no skin in teh game, and you have the genisis of this country's woes.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (NCw5u)

 

This.  And not only it's woes, but it's destruction. 

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2011 11:37 AM (oj5vc)

184 The shocking part here is that the people that like the reasoning of this decision would also say that you can't sale insurance across state lines.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 29, 2011 11:39 AM (26uEg)

185 sell would have been a better word.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 29, 2011 11:40 AM (26uEg)

186 EoJ, don't mess around, get you one of them bigguns. They can drag your deer.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 11:40 AM (NtTkA)

187 I think that the education system has failed in such a manner that a large portion of the electorate is too uninformed to vote. Feature, not bug

Posted by: Prarie Fire Bill at June 29, 2011 11:40 AM (WkuV6)

188 Speaking for myself, however, 'quit' in all encompassing. I'm not paying, I my not buying, I ain't doing anything but taking care of myself. Sure, they can send over the Dept. of Education SWAT team and try to arrest me for being intentionally broke and not paying into anything or buying anything, and we'll have a grand 'ol time with it in their kangaroo court... if they can find me and catch me then explain what law I broke for not spending money that I don't have.

Posted by: Joe Biden at June 29, 2011 04:33 PM (3nrx7)

So I take this to mean that you *do* expect Obama to replace you before the next election?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:40 AM (bxiXv)

189 152 So. Any particular place I should consider moving to when I move to the Republic of Texas? Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2011 04:25 PM (VtjlW) Well, you can start by scratching Austin off your list. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:27 PM (bxiXv) ... Bah! I've got that problem all worked out. We'll have a fire moat built across the northern border in no time (once we're rid of the folks in DC, we'll be pumping more oil than we know what to do with. Add matches and we're all set) After that, we start launching hippies across on catapults. It'll be like pumpkin chunkin' and become the national sport of the Republic of Texas. The leftovers will starve to death from lack of careers in Womyn's Studies and Political Science.

Posted by: Damiano at June 29, 2011 11:42 AM (3nrx7)

190 I think that the education system has failed in such a manner that a large portion of the electorate is too uninformed to vote. Add in motor voter laws and the unfettered expansion of the franchise to persons who have no skin in teh game, and you have the genisis of this country's woes. Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (NCw5u) __________________________________________ I understand your frustration but please don't blame Obamacare on Americans' stupidity. Americans aren't stupid, and besides, that's a liberal tactic. This law was passed over vehement American opposition.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 11:42 AM (EPcuy)

191 Because this is what they want. They want you to quit. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 04:09 PM I'm already gone and I don't think I'll be back. Don't have any plans to renounce citizenship yet, because I don't want to come off as some type of carpetbagger when I return to conquer the American Battle Lands.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 11:43 AM (lbo6/)

192

You know what the Brain Trust at Time Magazine thinks.

That it's the part of the Declaration of Independence that says "from each according to his abilities," right?

Posted by: FireHorse at June 29, 2011 11:44 AM (jAKfY)

193 I'm already gone and I don't think I'll be back. Don't have any plans to renounce citizenship yet, because I don't want to come off as some type of carpetbagger when I return to conquer the American Battle Lands.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 04:43 PM (lbo6/)

Yeah, whatever. Tell us more about the Amazon women.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:45 AM (bxiXv)

194 LOL you paranoid wingnuts.  We're only going to require that you buy a minimal amount of lube.  Whether you use it to get your ass pounded is completely up to you.  That's your free choice.

Posted by: The Feds at June 29, 2011 11:46 AM (/Mla1)

195 And WTF is happening with efforts to repeal Obamacare?  We need more fresh conservative blood in Congress.  Bad.

Posted by: Marmo the Greater at June 29, 2011 11:47 AM (InrkQ)

196

Yeah, whatever. Tell us more about the Amazon women.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith

What he said.

Posted by: todler at June 29, 2011 11:48 AM (fPOY0)

197 This is just great. So much more efficient than those pesky checks and balances and that decrepit, outdated document written by ignorant racist slave-holders that couldn't have imagined a Rebecca Black.

So, will there be public elections and term limits for SCOTUS now then too? Hell, why don't we just have gladiator fights to pass legislation or put bills to a vote via American Idol†.

† Standard text messaging rates apply. Must be 18 years or older to participate. No purchase necessary. Not valid in Texas, Utah, Idaho, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska or New Hampshire.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at June 29, 2011 11:48 AM (4136b)

198 EoJ, don't mess around, get you one of them bigguns. They can drag your deer. I appreciate that, OP, but my 5'2" gal can do that, too. I'm 215 lbs and she can fireman's carry me up a flight of stairs. Bitch be crazy, but I love her.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 11:49 AM (lbo6/)

199 They all drink from the cup of this poison called liberalism. As people they aren't evil but they're ideology is nothing but. They will bring the downfall of this great country and they don't even realize it. I will fight to the death to stop the corrupting influence of liberals.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 11:49 AM (EPcuy)

200

Can we mandate that people have more children? Seems to me we could fix some of the demographic problems with SS and MediCare if only people had more children.

Why should we. According to the CDC's statistics on abortion, we've aborted 30 million taxpayers between 1973 and 2007.

Abortion: Killing the taxpayers of tomorrow for less responsibility today!

Posted by: rhaubib at June 29, 2011 11:49 AM (q32Ly)

201

maybe it's just me, but I seem to recal a WHOLE LOT of repubs campainging on repealing obamacare. what ever happened to that?

Maybe we should take a page out of the left's playbook and go sit in Bohners office and do some drum circle shit 24/7 until it gets brought up for repeal.

Posted by: todler at June 29, 2011 11:50 AM (fPOY0)

202

I appreciate that, OP, but my 5'2" gal can do that, too.

Speaking as someone blessed with less than ample height (lemme put it this way, your gal has 2 inches on me), we wee ones learn how to overcompensate quickly. 

And, yes, please tell us more about Amazonia.  Particularly since your Amazonia also has Timbits and I would punch a hippie for some right now. 

 

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2011 11:52 AM (VtjlW)

203 I like the use of the word "rubbish" as a verb.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2011 11:52 AM (Orc9J)

204 Yeah, whatever. Tell us more about the Amazon women. Well, the one that reports to me is a thoroughly Westernized Afghan, 25 yrs old, dark eyed, with black hair halfway down to her waist. Looks like the princess in Prince of Persia SHOULD have looked. Smart as hell, too. Good earner.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 11:52 AM (lbo6/)

205

All I'll say is that it's far far away. 

I'll bet it rhymes with Squeroo.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 29, 2011 11:53 AM (jAKfY)

206 Kill me. No hope, kill me now.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at June 29, 2011 11:54 AM (NRoaR)

207 Saving throw, SAVING THROW!!

Posted by: WeekendAtBernankes at June 29, 2011 11:54 AM (L5TO4)

208 --They all drink from the cup of this poison called liberalism. As people they aren't evil but they're ideology is nothing but.

Leftists are locusts.  Individually, they seem like nice little grasshoppers (if pathetic and annoying with their idiotic chirping all the time) but when they reach a certain density, neurological and physiological changes take place, they form a swarm, take off and devastate everything they come across, leaving nothing in their wake.

The only saving grace of locusts and liberals is that they are edible, because after they've swept through an area, there's nothing else left to eat.

However, most leftists are evil, even as individuals.  The grasshopper look is nothing but a pose.

--They will bring the downfall of this great country and they don't even realize it. 

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 04:49 PM (EPcuy)

They do realize it.  It's exactly what they want.  It's illusory-guilt driven insanity and they look at the destruction of the West as the uiltimate atonement that will release their own feelings of guilt that invade their every waking moment (and for which they blame their parents - fathers, mostly - and all of society).

That's how I see it, at least.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 11:55 AM (G/MYk)

209 See you in the camps, brothers.

Posted by: toby928 at June 29, 2011 11:57 AM (GTbGH)

210 Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 04:55 PM (G/MYk) You're right! Maybe they DO want the downfall of this great nation, but they think that they are doing good. They honestly don't look at it as destruction for it's own sake. They feel they are builidng something "better". It's awful.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 11:58 AM (EPcuy)

211 Well, the one that reports to me is a thoroughly Westernized Afghan, 25 yrs old, dark eyed, with black hair halfway down to her waist.

Looks like the princess in Prince of Persia SHOULD have looked. Smart as hell, too. Good earner.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 04:52 PM (lbo6/)

I am going to my bunk now, and I'll be crying as I do so.

Tell us more.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 29, 2011 11:59 AM (bxiXv)

212 When is the new point man going to be named to take Weiner's place on Thomas attacks? I think the progs have decided that Kennedy is too unreliable to trust to vote in favor of Obamacare.

Posted by: museisluse at June 29, 2011 12:01 PM (Y3n3D)

213 If they can force us to buy a product or service, what's to stop them from dictating the brand? "Buy Sony electronics or pay a penalty." "Buy GM cars or pay a penalty." etc.

Posted by: Dan at June 29, 2011 12:01 PM (fgAcA)

214  209 See you in the camps, brothers.

Posted by: toby928™ at June 29, 2011 04:57 PM (GTbGH)

::crosses fingers::

Please let me get put in the gulag with the cool people,  please let me get put in the gulag with the cool people.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at June 29, 2011 12:04 PM (4136b)

215

Please let me get put in the gulag with the cool people,  please let me get put in the gulag with the cool people.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at June 29, 2011 05:04 PM (4136b)

No.  You want to be in a gulag with the fat people ... for the sandwich, as David Keith would tell you.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 12:06 PM (G/MYk)

216

Please let me get put in the gulag with the cool people,  please let me get put in the gulag with the cool people.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat

I want to be in the gulag with the Moronettes.

I might die, but i'd die happy.

Posted by: todler at June 29, 2011 12:07 PM (fPOY0)

217 I just hope the Dems don't mandate that we buy Windows Vista.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2011 12:14 PM (RfVDl)

218 You're right! Maybe they DO want the downfall of this great nation, but they think that they are doing good. They honestly don't look at it as destruction for it's own sake. They feel they are builidng something "better". It's awful.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 04:58 PM (EPcuy)

Here is the Rosetta Stone to understanding liberals:

They believe in the perfection of man and that that perfection is inevitable.

It explains everything.

Why do they hate (Christian) religion?  Because it hasn't brought human perfection yet.  Therefore it must stand in the way of it.

Why are they happy to destroy institutions?  Because they also must stand in the way of human perfection.  Therefore, to destroy them is to bring about paradise.

Why do they love Islam? Because it is destructive and whatever it destroys will just permit the green shoots of perfection to arise.

Conservatives think that history is a long process of sacrifice bunts and taking pitches.

Liberals were born on third base and think they hit a triple.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 12:16 PM (T0NGe)

219 And me with no room left in the magazine.  I'll have to bury some.

Posted by: toby928 at June 29, 2011 12:18 PM (GTbGH)

220 Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 05:16 PM (T0NGe) The scary question is: what is their idea of perfection?

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 12:19 PM (EPcuy)

221

Obama is trying to create a commerce (i.e. “activity) which is not allowed (http://tinyurl.com/3ksaunfby the Constitution.  There’s nothing remotely “individual” about the ObamaCare mandate.  The Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase government mandated services, including health insurance.   Nor does it permit the federal government to force citizens to use their own money to purchase government mandated services. Period. 

The Commerce Clause has been twisted and manipulated  to justify the use of federal laws that have little to do with interstate commerce. (http://tinyurl.com/c25295)

This will end up in the United States Supreme Court. Until then, expect the battle to be played out in the courts of appeals all the way up.

Posted by: SFC MAC at June 29, 2011 01:03 PM (WB46i)

222 "self-insurance" doesn't exist any more than "intelligent liberal." "Intelligent" means, inter alia, the absence of liberalism. Insurance requires diversification of risk among more than one person besides the self. Someone who says "self insurance" is rather ignorant about the entire nature of risk management. If one choses not to insure, that is simply called "retaining the risk." But how can one expect retards who can't get the most obvious facts about the constitution correct to understand the nuances of actual business models.

Posted by: Madison's grave-turning at June 29, 2011 03:57 PM (STTZD)

223 It's not that I wanted to rule that the commerce clause is unlimited, but that the precedents of the Supreme Court forced my hand. If the Supreme Court spends a hundred years saying that the commerce clause is limited, but in practice finding no limit of that power, what was I supposed to do? Decide that the constitution means whatever I want it to? Only the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit get to do that.

Posted by: Justice Sutton at June 29, 2011 10:32 PM (snQSI)

224 Great post,I will read your post time to time.thank you!

Posted by: Jersey at July 02, 2011 12:30 AM (VpAvQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
218kb generated in CPU 0.2, elapsed 1.2543 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0957 seconds, 460 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.