Déjà vu all over again

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Obama walked back his claim from yesterday.

    This really makes me wonder, exactly what did Obama lecture about in his class at the University of Chicago? It turns out that he "taught" due process and civil rights. That could explain why he doesn't understand Lochner, which wasn't even a commerce clause case.

    My question is, if Obama thinks a decision that did not even involve the federal government is the last time the court overturned a commerce clause case involving economic issues, how does he explain Free Enterprise Fund v PCAOB or US v United Foods, Inc.? The latter is particularly telling vis a vis Obamacare since it was decided 7-2, and the court ruled that the government couldn't actually require mushroom growers to participate in a mandatory mushroom promotion program.

    I wonder how long it will be before someone comes in and tells me I am getting what Obama said wrong, again.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZbtAFq7dP8]Bill Murray - Best scenes from the "Groundhog Day" - 4 - YouTube[/ame]
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,560
    Thanks Received:
    8,165
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,187
    Considering Lochner is a Due Process clause cause, you'd think a Constitutional lawyer in the Due Process area would actually understand it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. imbalance
    Offline

    imbalance Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,202
    Thanks Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +163
    I like how he ignores the fundamental issue; no one is questioning the Federal Government's authority to regulate commerce but rather the Federal Government's authority to coerce commerce (shredding US contract law) that would otherwise not exist.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,560
    Thanks Received:
    8,165
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,187
    Actually, I would argue against the Federal Governments ability to regulate commerce. The Constitution only allows them to regulate interstate commerce.

    And They had a much stricter definition of what commerce was. Using their definition of commerce, it's debateable whether health insurance qualifies.
     
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Personally, I believe the commerce clause was intended solely to prevent trade wars between the states.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page