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

[Charles Stucker]

Self-Delusion has become the latest prerequisite for membership in the right wing.

So the left no longer has exclusive rights to self delusion?

 

[Contumacious]

Keyword > INTERSTATE not INTRASTATE.

Intrastate activities can fall under the interstate commerce clause if those activities would have any rational effect on interstate commerce.

Consider also the Necessary and Proper clause.

Fucking amazing, our Constitution is so ambiguous. And I bet the Communist Manifesto is not, right?

.

 

[emilynghiem]

The experts, and even the Supreme Court, could decide to rule in favor of Congress on this one, and could still be wrong. If the law discriminates against people's beliefs (in either health insurance or constitutionality of the bill itself), where consent of the governed is normally required to make a legally binding social contract, that is not Constitutional.

Any law that does "discriminates against people's beliefs" is unconstitutional? Using that standard, every law passes is unconstitutional, as you'll find at least one person that feels the law goes against their beliefs.

YES, technically it IS establishing a bias. So if people CONSENT to that, it can still be established as law; but no social contract is legally binding if the affected parties do not consent to it. If you want to be absolutely politically correct and Constitutional about "equal protections" of the laws in all cases for all people, there would have to be mediation and consensus on EVERY law, in order to respect "the consent of the governed," or else separate the conflicting policies, including the funding, jurisdiction and enforcement, where they do not impose on dissenting groups. However, the reason this standard is not enforced, it is would require all parties to respect each other's consent equally; and most people are not willing to do that, but want to use majority-rule to overrule the other side.

Where people AGREE to submit to majority-rule or government authority, it is common to consent to less than 100% consensus. But clearly, on such issues such as abortion, marriage laws, gun control, immigration and now this health care plan, people do not consent to be ruled by majority where it violates their core beliefs. Just because such violations have been occurring, and have been tolerated, does not make them lawful.
Only where people CONSENT to have the government establish a biased policy (such as states endorsing marriage or the death penalty which both involve spiritual matters), we have ignored the fact that it technically violates the separation of church and state.

It is only where we OPPOSE such a decision or bias that we bother to protest or sue. (For example, protesting against the National Day of Prayer or MLK Day but not Earth Day.) The real issue is not religion, but whether policies represent the CONSENT of those affected.
There are a lot of policies out there people don't consent to, but put up with. If the democratic process was based on conflict resolution until agreement is reached by all parties, to protect all interests equally, that standard would prevent both infractions and political abuses. Technically, consensus is the only way to ensure equal protection and representation under the law; but until that standard is adopted and practiced freely by agreement, it seems more people are accustomed to the given system of majority rule.

If you consent to use this, and accept responsibility for the abuses of the political process, you are free to continue with that standard. But I do not, and have seen irreparable damages caused by lack of consensus on decisions which I cannot repair though I have tried. So I no longer consent to a system too easily abused to violate equal rights and protections, though I "put up with it" until more people agree to use mediation instead.

Again, such standards are not enforceable unless the people invoking the right to decision by mediation and consensus equally respect the same protection for others with even opposing views or interests; otherwise it is inconsistent to demand free choice or consensus while violating it (like what is happening today with parties taking turns abusing power to overrule others, instead of respecting consent, then complaining when the same is done to them). Because of the political conflicts in violating the "consent of the governed" as the basis of the Constitution as a social contract between people and government, that is why there are more cases of people rejecting federal authority as fraud. Technically, if you breach a contract, it is null and void; and people can rightfully disclaim the authority of those responsible for breaches.

 

[Toro]

Does this mean Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional also? And if so, why haven't any conservatives challenged it yet?

 

[Oddball]

Yes.

Because they're either cowards or don't mean a word they say about limited gubmint and constitutional constructionist principles....I'd go as far to say it's both.

 

[The T]

Yes.

Because they're either cowards or don't mean a word they say about limited gubmint and constitutional constructionist principles....I'd go as far to say it's both.

True.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Stop making sense!

If you keep doing this it will undermine the whole philosophical foundation of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB.

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.

Stop making sense!

If you keep doing this it will undermine the whole philosophical foundation of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB.

 

[ihopehefails]

That is my interpretation as well because it gives congress the power to control the movement of goods across political barriers. Its just common sense since the founders were trying to create a quasi-national government that had the same powers as any national government would such as controlling what leaves and goes beyond its borders. Most governments have this power so it makes sense that the new federal government would also have it but that is only the power to control what comes across political borders such as national, state, and indian tribes.