Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[Inthemiddle]

It didn't rationalize like I said?

So, when the court said "The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs" they weren't actually saying he was involved in the market.

How about when they said? "A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market."

How about this? "Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty, but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as "available for marketing" as so defined, and the penalty is imposed thereon."

Maybe the problem here is not that I haven't read the decision, maybe the problem is that you can't think.

You do this all the time and it's really pathetic. You hold up an octopus and you call it a horse. You're looking right at it, and you still call it a horse. You pull on the tentacles and say "Look, it's got rein, it must be a horse, you're too stupid to know it." The things you are saying are not there to be read in the decision. You quote things, and then proceed to explain how those very things say something entirely different than what they say. So until you can bring your reading comprehension up to at least a 6th grade level, there is no reason to consider anything you think you have to say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It didn't rationalize like I said?

So, when the court said "The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs" they weren't actually saying he was involved in the market.

How about when they said? "A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market."

How about this? "Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty, but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as "available for marketing" as so defined, and the penalty is imposed thereon."

Maybe the problem here is not that I haven't read the decision, maybe the problem is that you can't think.

You do this all the time and it's really pathetic. You hold up an octopus and you call it a horse. You're looking right at it, and you still call it a horse. You pull on the tentacles and say "Look, it's got rein, it must be a horse, you're too stupid to know it." The things you are saying are not there to be read in the decision. You quote things, and then proceed to explain how those very things say something entirely different than what they say. So until you can bring your reading comprehension up to at least a 6th grade level, there is no reason to consider anything you think you have to say.

It's a mollusc.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, nothing was disproven... You can pretend it was if it makes you feel better...

So let me get this straight. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the federal government to force individuals to buy a given product or item. I've shown an example of a federal law enacted in 1792 where the federal government did exactly that. You think that grunt's claim is still valid, even though we have an example that clearly contradicts his statement? When you're ready to start thinking rationally and apply logic instead of partisan hackery and wishery, we can talk. Until then, be silent, lest you make yourself look even more like a fool.

The federal government did what in 1792?...Be specific.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, nothing was disproven... You can pretend it was if it makes you feel better...

So let me get this straight. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the federal government to force individuals to buy a given product or item. I've shown an example of a federal law enacted in 1792 where the federal government did exactly that. You think that grunt's claim is still valid, even though we have an example that clearly contradicts his statement? When you're ready to start thinking rationally and apply logic instead of partisan hackery and wishery, we can talk. Until then, be silent, lest you make yourself look even more like a fool.

The federal government did what in 1792?...Be specific.

They ordered the militia to be ready. Somehow he thinks that proves Obamacare is constitutional, don't ask me to explain that part though.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So let me get this straight. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the federal government to force individuals to buy a given product or item. I've shown an example of a federal law enacted in 1792 where the federal government did exactly that. You think that grunt's claim is still valid, even though we have an example that clearly contradicts his statement? When you're ready to start thinking rationally and apply logic instead of partisan hackery and wishery, we can talk. Until then, be silent, lest you make yourself look even more like a fool.

The federal government did what in 1792?...Be specific.

They ordered the militia to be ready. Somehow he thinks that proves Obamacare is constitutional, don't ask me to explain that part though.

Notice the timely response from "inthemiddle"

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So let me get this straight. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the federal government to force individuals to buy a given product or item. I've shown an example of a federal law enacted in 1792 where the federal government did exactly that. You think that grunt's claim is still valid, even though we have an example that clearly contradicts his statement? When you're ready to start thinking rationally and apply logic instead of partisan hackery and wishery, we can talk. Until then, be silent, lest you make yourself look even more like a fool.

The federal government did what in 1792?...Be specific.

They ordered the militia to be ready. Somehow he thinks that proves Obamacare is constitutional, don't ask me to explain that part though.

But see the constition says to "Provide" for the common defense while only "Promoting" the general welfare

 

[TorJohnson]

Gee, it seems no one has been able to assail this post's primary contention.

Who is this Decepticon fellow and why was he banned?
He seems a worthy opponent.

 

[Conservative]

Gee, it seems no one has been able to assail this post's primary contention.

Who is this Decepticon fellow and why was he banned?
He seems a worthy opponent.

That alone proves you're a complete moron.

He was banned for threatening a poster.

 

[Dr.House]

Actually, nothing was disproven... You can pretend it was if it makes you feel better...

So let me get this straight. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the federal government to force individuals to buy a given product or item. I've shown an example of a federal law enacted in 1792 where the federal government did exactly that.

What did the government require to be purchased, specifically? Cite the passage, please...

You think that grunt's claim is still valid, even though we have an example that clearly contradicts his statement?

If it so clearly contradicts his claim, it should be easy for you to produce the line of the act which does so...

We're waiting...

When you're ready to start thinking rationally and apply logic instead of partisan hackery and wishery, we can talk. Until then, be silent, lest you make yourself look even more like a fool.

You far-left wingnuts just can't seem to back up your shit and when called on it you just swing the ad hominem stick...

Well played, junior....lol

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Gee, it seems no one has been able to assail this post's primary contention.

Who is this Decepticon fellow and why was he banned?
He seems a worthy opponent.

you obviously missed my exchange with decepticon, keep reading on.