Commerce Clause : SCOTUS: Congress Authorized To Regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY

[The T]

Interesting. I wonder if this too will be used in the suit against the Federal Government by the 14 States' Attorneys?

And what of Article 1 Section 9?

Definately will be used...it establishes precedent.

Hopefully they will.

.

I concur.

 

[The T]

Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.

Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.

14 politicians? 14 politicians running for election? I thought the Tea Party wanted to throw all the bums out?

I guess not all bums are created equal.

*YOU* may demean these "BUMS" all you like, but they are doing thier Constitutionally mandated functions as States Attornies. Politics doesn't enter into it. Their Solid Soveriegnity as signatories as States under the 10th Amendment however does weigh heavily.

The FED cannot do as they please to override the States' own Constitutions, and expect no dissent from the States...by LAW itself as per the 10th Amendment.

 

[The T]

the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.

Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.

I heard. But the Radicalized Clowns @ USMB will only attack you, your source, and anything else. Delusion takes no hostages.

Some of us "radicalized CLOWNS" as you so quaintly put it have standing in LAW.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."


U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

.

So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.

.

That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.

 

[The T]

Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.

The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.

that remains to be seen doesn't it.

Indeed. This is quickly becoming a 10th issue.

 

[The T]

. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."


U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

.

So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.

.

That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.

They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.

The opinions of one university panel has no bearing on what the SCOTUS will decide. Obviously the AGs in over a dozen states wouldn't be filing these suits if they didn't think they had some merit.

 

[Polk]

Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.

The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.

Is that why these State's Attorneys have filed the suits to protect the interests of their respective States, as they are bound to do by their respective State Constitutions?

Is this also why that about 36 State Legislatures have crafted legislation to protect themselves from Federally mandated LAW that they cannot afford?

Many are BROKE or on the brink of it.

The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand. If they were truly concerned about their state's budgetary woes, they won't be pissing away money on lawsuits which have no shot of success.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.

That's your opinion and nothing more.

 

[The T]

And herin lies just cause as to why the 17th Amendment must be repealed and put back in the hands of State Legislatures as intended by the Founders.

What we see is why the Amendment process can be dangerous in rhetrospect of the actions as exhibited in 1913 by the adoption of the 17th.

It will further bolster the power of the people, as do Elections of Reps to the House every two years on a Federal level.

The FED has too much power.

 

[The T]

The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.

Is that why these State's Attorneys have filed the suits to protect the interests of their respective States, as they are bound to do by their respective State Constitutions?

Is this also why that about 36 State Legislatures have crafted legislation to protect themselves from Federally mandated LAW that they cannot afford?

Many are BROKE or on the brink of it.

The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand. If they were truly concerned about their state's budgetary woes, they won't be pissing away money on lawsuits which have no shot of success.

NO. They did it to protect their States from an overreaching Fed that doesn't HAVE the power to do what they are. And something that will bust their budgets by this MANDATE.

 

[The T]

The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.

That's your opinion and nothing more.

He knows it. Polk thinks the FED is the Be-All to End all, and States have NO power over them.

 

[Polk]

Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.

14 politicians? 14 politicians running for election? I thought the Tea Party wanted to throw all the bums out?

I guess not all bums are created equal.

*YOU* may demean these "BUMS" all you like, but they are doing thier Constitutionally mandated functions as States Attornies. Politics doesn't enter into it. Their Solid Soveriegnity as signatories as States under the 10th Amendment however does weigh heavily.

The FED cannot do as they please to override the States' own Constitutions, and expect no dissent from the States...by LAW itself as per the 10th Amendment.

Yeah, no politics involved at all. I'm sure it's just random chance that 13 of the 14 are Republicans, and the lone Democrat (Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana) did so at the direction of his state's Republican governor.

 

[Polk]

Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.

I heard. But the Radicalized Clowns @ USMB will only attack you, your source, and anything else. Delusion takes no hostages.

Some of us "radicalized CLOWNS" as you so quaintly put it have standing in LAW.

What's your legal training, Tommy?

 

[Polk]

So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.

.

That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.

They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.

Yes, since the federal law in question trumps the laws of the individual states.

 

[Polk]

Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.

The opinions of one university panel has no bearing on what the SCOTUS will decide. Obviously the AGs in over a dozen states wouldn't be filing these suits if they didn't think they had some merit.

That assumes they only file suits in cases where there is merit (instead of for, you know, partisan political gain).

 

[Polk]

The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.

That's your opinion and nothing more.

Sure. It also happens to the opinion of just about every legal scholar in the country.

 

[The T]

That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.

They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.

Yes, since the federal law in question trumps the laws of the individual states.

NO it doesn't to think so relegates the Tenth Amendment to obscuirty and ignorence as you display. The FED cannot mandate something they have NO RIGHT in doing.

 

[Polk]

They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.

Yes, since the federal law in question trumps the laws of the individual states.

NO it doesn't to think so relegates the Tenth Amendment to obscuirty and ignorence as you display. The FED cannot mandate something they have NO RIGHT in doing.

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[The T]

The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.

That's your opinion and nothing more.

Sure. It also happens to the opinion of just about every legal scholar in the country.

Their *OPINIONS* are wrong. The States have every right under InterState Commerce, and the 10th that the FED as in this LAW that their rights per admission to the Union are being trampled upon. The FED is going upon the 'Presumption' of a non-existant "Right" as emnumerated in the Constitution.

There is NO RIGHT to healthcare at all.

And the FED cannot compel Commerce by LAW, and try to enforce compliance.