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

[The T]

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.

WRONG. There is NOTHING that Compels the FED to force Commerce contained within the Constitution. NOTHING whatsoever, and the FED cannot enforce something that doesn't exist. You are DEAD WRONG.

 

[kyzr]

Not that I'm a lawyer, but the experts seems to agree that Obama's healthcare grab is un-Constitutional. The USSC will decide. I'm glad that Obama really pissed them off at the State-of-the-Union. That will help.

 

[Polk]

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.

Where's your law degree from again, Tommy? After all, surely you must have some basis for which to know better than people who spend years studying the issue.

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

The bill doesn't force the purchase of health insurance any more than the tax deductability of mortgage interest forces the purchase of homes. But even if it did require the purchase of insurance, you'd be on shaky ground claiming that's unconstitutional, since there have been federal laws mandating the purchase of certain goods going all the way back to the beginning of the nation.

 

[The T]

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.

Where's your law degree from again, Tommy? After all, surely you must have some basis for which to know better than people who spend years studying the issue.

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

The bill doesn't force the purchase of health insurance any more than the tax deductability of mortgage interest forces the purchase of homes. But even if it did require the purchase of insurance, you'd be on shaky ground claiming that's unconstitutional, since there have been federal laws mandating the purchase of certain goods going all the way back to the beginning of the nation.

______________________

And where's YOURS?

Florida Attorney General McCollum Sues Federal Government Over Health Care Reform Legislation


TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Labor alleging the Health Care Reform bill signed into law by President Obama this morning is unconstitutional. The bipartisan lawsuit was joined by 12 Attorneys General and is the first challenge of the new law.

“This bipartisan effort by Attorneys General around the country should put the Federal Government on notice that we will not tolerate the constitutional rights of our citizens and the sovereignty of our states to be trampled on,” said Attorney General Bill McCollum. “This law represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of the American people, and I will pursue this litigation to the highest court if necessary.”

The Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota joined Florida’s lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

The complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of Floridians and residents of the other states by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty. By imposing such a mandate, the law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, the tax penalty required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

SOURCE

The FED does not have the right to foist law on States of a non-existant "Right".

The case is clear And Not political 'grandstanding'. The Constitution is clear on this, and just because a LAW was passed does not make it so without a challenge. The FED may not trample over the Tenth Amendment and as the article states Article 1 Sections 2 and 9 as stated.

So hold your fire. *I* belive it wil lbe shot down by the Court on Constitutional Grounds.

In your thinking the FED can do whatever it wants with no recourse.Which makes you very dangerous.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

Oh yeah....like your dumb ass is a law expert.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

Where's your law degree from again, Tommy?

Where's your law degree from Johnny fucking Cochroach

 

[Polk]

The law doesn't base itself on the idea that health care is a right. It's genesis is in the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't some hippy-dippy liberal reading of the relevant case law. It's a position supported by the vast majority of scholarly legal opinion in the country, and the ideas upon which it rests are spelled out in judicial opinions written by justices of both parties.

 

[Polk]

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.

Where's your law degree from again, Tommy?

Where's your law degree from Johnny fucking Cochroach

I'm not the one claiming I know more about the law than legal scholars.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The law doesn't base itself on the idea that health care is a right. It's genesis is in the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't some hippy-dippy liberal reading of the relevant case law. It's a position supported by the vast majority of scholarly legal opinion in the country, and the ideas upon which it rests are spelled out in judicial opinions written by justices of both parties.

Well then...what are you bitching about ...the country will let the case proceed to the Supreme Court and we will see what happens.

 

[Contumacious]

The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even non-economic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.

From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.

All four conservatives voted against allowing the US to become a welfare state:


MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER joins in this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting.

[184] I think that the objections to the challenged enactment expressed in the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND are well taken. I am also of opinion that, in principle and as applied to bring about and to gain control over state unemployment compensation, the statutory scheme is repugnant to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution grants to the United States no power to pay unemployed persons or to require the States to enact laws or to raise or disburse money for that purpose. The provisions in question, if not amounting to coercion in a legal sense, are manifestly designed and intended directly to affect state action in the respects specified. And, if valid as so employed, this "tax and credit" device may be made effective to enable federal authorities to induce, if not indeed to compel, state enactments for any purpose within the realm of state power, and generally to control state administration of state laws."


U.S. Supreme Court
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Where's your law degree from again, Tommy?

Where's your law degree from Johnny fucking Cochroach

I'm not the one claiming I know more about the law than legal scholars.

No..but you're the one claiming the case is already won when you have no idea of what the outcome will be....so I would suggest you shut up and not count your chickens until the eggs hatch.

 

[Polk]

The law doesn't base itself on the idea that health care is a right. It's genesis is in the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't some hippy-dippy liberal reading of the relevant case law. It's a position supported by the vast majority of scholarly legal opinion in the country, and the ideas upon which it rests are spelled out in judicial opinions written by justices of both parties.

Well then...what are you bitching about ...the country will let the case proceed to the Supreme Court and we will see what happens.

Doubtful it makes it that far. It'll probably be dismissed due to lack of standing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

stupid! It's about the elections coming up. It's about manipulating stupid little angry fucks like you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

politics is driving it.

 

[Polk]

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.

stupid! It's about the elections coming up. It's about manipulating stupid little angry fucks like you.

What's Bill McCollum doing again?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The law doesn't base itself on the idea that health care is a right. It's genesis is in the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't some hippy-dippy liberal reading of the relevant case law. It's a position supported by the vast majority of scholarly legal opinion in the country, and the ideas upon which it rests are spelled out in judicial opinions written by justices of both parties.

Well then...what are you bitching about ...the country will let the case proceed to the Supreme Court and we will see what happens.

Doubtful it makes it that far. It'll probably be dismissed due to lack of standing.

Oh of course...your scholarly legal opinion is worth about as much as a fart in a tornado.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

stupid! It's about the elections coming up. It's about manipulating stupid little angry fucks like you.

What are you bitching for...afraid your side will lose?

 

[The T]

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.

politics is driving it.

Economics are. The states cannot stand another unfunded MANDATE from the FED, much less an UnConstitutional one.

We are BROKE. what about this don't you idiots understand?

 

[Polk]

*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.

politics is driving it.

Economics are. The states cannot stand another unfunded MANDATE from the FED, much less an UnConstitutional one.

We are BROKE. what about this don't you idiots understand?

Unfunded? The federal government covers the full cost of Medicaid expansion for the first two years, and covers 92 percent out to eternity.

 

[The T]

And the lesson the FED has to understand is that it ISN'T their money to start with. The wealth of this Republic belongs to the people.