Bogus TeaBerserker Contention That Courts Have Not Compelled A Purchase!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by mascale, Jan 20, 2011.

  1. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    The Interestate Commerce Clause is in the U. S. Constititution, and even the Indian Tribes are affected. It also extends to purchases that even do not get made, so it would easily be said to apply to purchase that do get made.

    Many would say so.

    ""But in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the “commerce clause” extends to local intrastate activities which “affect” interstate commerce, even if the activities aren’t “commerce”; and further, Congress has power to regulate prices of commodities and the practices which affect such prices!'"

    "'Thus, if you have tomato plants in your back yard for use solely in your own kitchen, you are “affecting” “interstate commerce” and are subject to regulation by Congress. The court’s reasoning is this: If you weren’t growing tomatoes in your back yard, you’d be buying them on the market. If you were buying them on the market, some of what you bought might come from another State. So! By not buying them on the market, you are “affecting” “interstate commerce” because you didn’t buy something you otherwise would have bought. See? And we have to stand up when these people walk into a room!'"
    (Canadian Free Press)

    Even the act of growing the tomato plants in the backyard creates an involuntary entry into the the stream of commerce, as one Low Court now wants to say it, in the matter of the Constitutionality of Health Care: And by definition. The person growing plants in the backyard has no interest in making a purchase at all. That person is nevertheless an entrant into the market.

    The Low Court that ruled The Affordable Health Care Act, aka the "The Job-Killing Bill That Has To Be Destroyed In Order To Promote the Interests of the Tiny Minority TeaBerserkers, of the Minority GOP:" All of that(?), Unconstitutional. . . . ; mainly attacked the arithmetic of the law which sets up minimum standards on which to base actuarial assumptions. The concept of the individual was not included. The arithmetic Minimums Coverage assumptions were what was called unconstitutional(?).

    Probablities, data, and statistics in fact do cross state lines. The courts have already ruled in the individual matter of whether or an involuntary entry into the marketplace is included. It is, even if it doesn't quite happen that way(?)!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Interstate Commerce Clause send many into stream of marketplaces, hook, line, and sinker, and Ready or Not!)
     
  2. cutter
    Offline

    cutter Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,142
    Thanks Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +304
    Let's see. Health care mandated by the gubberment is legal because I can grow tomatoes in my backyard. Get the rubber room ready there's another progressive heading your way.
     
  3. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    The Court did this, below:

    ""But in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the “commerce clause” extends to local intrastate activities which “affect” interstate commerce, even if the activities aren’t “commerce”; and further, Congress has power to regulate prices of commodities and the practices which affect such prices!'"

    The tomato part is called an example. See that practices are included.

    The Minimum Standards in the Affordable Health Care Act are practices, and on which to base pricing. Arithmetic happens all the time in the law.

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (California health care is affected, which needs the expanded, national, risk pool, even, to prevent the 60% premium hikes! Prices are affected, even there.)
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Damn.

    I forgot how confuddled your posts were, thanks for reminding me.
     
  5. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,769
    Thanks Received:
    4,332
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,727
    So lefties have determined that growing tomato plants in your backyard can be controlled by the gigantic bureaucracy of the federal government (so watch out) and you could lose your freedom and property, not to mention your life if the federal government decides to invoke the dreaded "Kommerce Klause". A chilling scenario courtesy of liberal democrats reminding you who runs your life.
     
  6. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    The TeaBerserker Opposition to the Constitution, then some posters want to suggest, includes denial of the entire Federal Court System.

    The TeaBerserker Plans For Increase of Prices for Medical Care and health insurance--The TeaBerserker Plans for HyperInflation for all Americans--are clearly shown in their glossing over of the federal courts.

    The Affordable Health Insurance Act is clearly about prices. In 1942, the Federal Courts provided that prices are included in the regulation of interstate commerce. A risk pool is central to any pricing of any insurance.

    The federal courts have already addressed the pricing issue.

    Anyone on the planet can see just how stupid the TeaBerserkers really are, when all in fact is hollered over and over again!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!)
    (It is noted that the federal government even regulates smog, compelling somehow the breathing of whatever in fact, is actually out there. The federal government is easily said to include even involuntary breathing, as a part of its Constitutional authority(?)!)
     

Share This Page