Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[Decepticon]

How does one reply to a thread where the poster suggests throwing out "precedent" as a legal precept?

By quoting from dissenting judges...duh!

Here's another one:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything ... quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
U. S. Supreme Court Justice

dissenting judges = precedent should be thrown out?

In what universe?
Oh, the one where you make sense or know what you're talking about.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

CONZ!!!!!

 

[eflatminor]

How does one reply to a thread where the poster suggests throwing out "precedent" as a legal precept?

By quoting from dissenting judges...duh!

Here's another one:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything ... quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
U. S. Supreme Court Justice

dissenting judges = precedent should be thrown out?

In what universe?
Oh, the one where you make sense or know what you're talking about.

Actually, the SC may overturn a precedent when they feel it no longer applies. The court regularly revisits and reconsiders its precedents, as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the current chief justice’s former boss and mentor, once observed succinctly. “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” he said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

I'm sure you know better though...

I bet you've agreed with SC rulings overturning previous decisions: In Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court dismissed as “facetious” the notion that the Constitution offered protection for gay rights. Overturning that decision 17 years later, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”

 

[Decepticon]

By quoting from dissenting judges...duh!

Here's another one:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything ... quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
U. S. Supreme Court Justice

dissenting judges = precedent should be thrown out?

In what universe?
Oh, the one where you make sense or know what you're talking about.

Actually, the SC may overturn a precedent when they feel it no longer applies. The court regularly revisits and reconsiders its precedents, as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the current chief justice’s former boss and mentor, once observed succinctly. “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” he said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

I'm sure you know better though...

I bet you've agreed with SC rulings overturning previous decisions: In Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court dismissed as “facetious” the notion that the Constitution offered protection for gay rights. Overturning that decision 17 years later, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”

33 out of how many precedents?
How many were upheld?

Once again, a CON presents a fact like a LONE CHILD in the woods, pretending it doesn't have relatives.

Let's put this into perspective, if you have the facts at your disposal.
Or are you just saying stuff and not know if it's true or not?
At its root the common law system rests on a fallacy: appeal to authority. The older decision will generally be upheld even if it is wrong, stupid, or otherwise bad.
Why are precedents important

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Stop pretending like you understand what you're reading.

 

[hortysir]

Who was being forced to buy Farmer Roscoe's wheat?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

I always love how the most stupid among us are always the ones telling the rest of us we don't know what we're talking about.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?

My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.

How is that interstate? I don't see it please enlighten me.

riddle me that

The precedent takes place ALL ON ONE FARM.
Let's see if you can figure out where you failed.

I doubt it.

Translation: Health Insurance that is not sold across state lines is not an interstate item and I have no way to make a valid response.

 

[Leweman]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

I always love how the most stupid among us are always the ones telling the rest of us we don't know what we're talking about.

They are called politicians.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

Why wouldn't we neg rep you? You're batting about zero on nearly everything.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

In wickard vs Filburn the Supreme Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Health insurance is not sold across state lines right now, remember the republicans were saying that doing so would be one option to lower health care in opposition to obamacare?

This case does not apply to the health care bill, its not the same at all.

 

[SniperFire]

Who was being forced to buy Farmer Roscoe's wheat?

Nobody, of course. But he is actively engaged in commerce as he markets his poultry and other livestock which feeds off his wheat - which is the raw material of his commercial endeavor.

This is different than forcing somebody NOT engaged in commerce to actively engage in commerce for the purpose of regulating it.


Hope that helps.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

In wickard vs Filburn the Supreme Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Health insurance is not sold across state lines right now, remember the republicans were saying that doing so would be one option to lower health care in opposition to obamacare?

This case does not apply to the health care bill, its not the same at all.

Careful, you'll confuse him even further.

 

[bripat9643]

Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.

This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

We're all familiar with the case. It was pure horseshit conjured up by a court that FDR packed with his ideological hacks. The decision has no valid constitutional justification.

That being said, the federal government did not force the farmer to grow wheat, nor did it force anyone to buy the farmer's wheat. All it did was tell him how much he coul grow.

The ACA is forcing people to purchase a product, not just telling them what kind of product they can purchase or how much of it.

Wickard vs Filburn is horseshit. It's the product of a dictator's scheme to destroy the constitution. It has no relevance to the valid law. The ACA is also the result of a dictator's scheme to destroy the Constitution.

 

[KissMy]

Either libs don't believe that literally everything would be subject to government regulation because they are too stupid to figure it out, or liberals want the government to regulate everything because the leaders automatically KNOW what's best for everyone.

Put it in terms they can understand. John Smith grows pot in his closet using a grow light. This affects the price of marijuana sold at pot clinics. Therefore John Smith has violated federal law by affecting interstate commerce. Mary Smith, John's mother, does not use marijuana. Her failure to get high affects the interstate commerce of marijuana by depriving commerce of a customer. Mary Smith violated federal law by not using pot.

You're closer than you think.

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Answer the question bird brain! Did the Ashcroft v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn force all citizens to purchase or smoke pot, purchase or eat wheat, purchase or use health-care??????

 

[Decepticon]

Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance..

The ACA is forcing people to purchase a product.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.

This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

We're all familiar with the case. It was pure horseshit conjured up by a court that FDR packed with his ideological hacks. The decision has no valid constitutional justification.

That being said, the federal government did not force the farmer to grow wheat, nor did it force anyone to buy the farmer's wheat. All it did was tell him how much he coul grow.

Wickard vs Filburn is horseshit. It's the product of a dictator's scheme to destroy the constitution. It has no relevance to the valid law.[/QUOTE]


So, your answer is that the LAW is BULLSHIT and has no relevance.

Well, how nice that must be in your GUMDROP HOUSE ON LOLLIPOP LANE!!!

So go take your irrelevant rant, roll it up into a ball and go fuck yourself with it.
In the real world, this law matters, dipshit. FACT!
REGARDLESS of YOUR lousy, ill informed OPINION of it.

 

[Decepticon]

Either libs don't believe that literally everything would be subject to government regulation because they are too stupid to figure it out, or liberals want the government to regulate everything because the leaders automatically KNOW what's best for everyone.

Put it in terms they can understand. John Smith grows pot in his closet using a grow light. This affects the price of marijuana sold at pot clinics. Therefore John Smith has violated federal law by affecting interstate commerce. Mary Smith, John's mother, does not use marijuana. Her failure to get high affects the interstate commerce of marijuana by depriving commerce of a customer. Mary Smith violated federal law by not using pot.

You're closer than you think.

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Answer the question bird brain! Did the Ashcroft v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn force all citizens to purchase or smoke pot, purchase or eat wheat, purchase or use health-care??????

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

 

[KissMy]

You're closer than you think.

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Answer the question bird brain! Did the Ashcroft v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn force all citizens to purchase or smoke pot, purchase or eat wheat, purchase or use health-care??????

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

If you are saying the government forced the farmer to buy chicken feed then you are wrong. The farmer could still grow corn, milo, soy beans, oats, ect. Chickens eat many other grains other than just wheat. The farmer could also just sell some of his chickens.

 

[SniperFire]

That being said, the federal government did not force the farmer to grow wheat, nor did it force anyone to buy the farmer's wheat. All it did was tell him how much he coul grow.
.

Said farmer was engaged in COMMERCE, as the wheat was the feedstock of his commercial endeavor. So the Fed justifed it based on the commerce clause.

This is different than forcing somebody NOT engaged in a commerce to participate for purposes of regulating him.


You are clueless.

 

[hortysir]

That being said, the federal government did not force the farmer to grow wheat, nor did it force anyone to buy the farmer's wheat. All it did was tell him how much he coul grow.
.

Said farmer was engaged in COMMERCE, as the wheat was the feedstock of his commercial endeavor. So the Fed justifed it based on the commerce clause.

This is different than forcing somebody NOT engaged in a commerce to participate for purposes of regulating him.


You are clueless.

3 fingers pointing back at you.

OP's case has zero to do with an Individual Mandate.