Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[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.

3 fingers pointing back at you.

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

Wrong again. The individual mandate is being justified as a latent regulated commercial endeavor - just like just minding one's own business by growing wheat.

I showed you the difference. You probably can't grasp it.

 

[Claudette]

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.

Shhhh keep it quiet.

He thinks he's the greatest. You wouldn't want to burst his bubble now would you??

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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

I doubt it.

The "precedent" is obvious horseshit. Growing wheat on your own land without selling it is not "interstate commerce."

 

[francoHFW]

As Justice Kennedy suspects, Health Care is unique. No matter what the Pub Propaganda Machine blares...

 

[grunt11b]

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.

Gross misrepresentation and interpretation of the constitution does not make it right. The founders never meant for an overbearing government to force the citizens into buying anything. Just because there was injustice in the past does not make it right to do so now. Which reenforces another thread from a week or so back about judicial activism and why it threatens our democracy.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

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

I doubt it.

The "precedent" is obvious horseshit. Growing wheat on your own land without selling it is not "interstate commerce."

You are correct, here is the case he is using as precedent

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.

 

[eflatminor]

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

So, you're arguing that the court should have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick? Interesting. You're full of shit, but yet interesting...

Yes, precedents are important but as the justices I've quoted stated, not hard and fast rules. Of course, there is no precedent for what Obamacare is trying to do, which the court will soon determine.

And by the way, I'm not a conservative but don't let that stop your incoherent rants. It's fun to watch!

 

[Decepticon]

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

So, you're arguing that the court should have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick? Interesting. You're full of shit, but yet interesting...

Yes, precedents are important but as the justices I've quoted stated, not hard and fast rules. Of course, there is no precedent for what Obamacare is trying to do, which the court will soon determine.

And by the way, I'm not a conservative but don't let that stop your incoherent rants. It's fun to watch!

Did I say that? No. Strawman fail.

I merely pointed out that overturning a precedent is a LOT harder than going along with one.

Answer me this...if you were a betting man, and the wager was if a panel of judges would overturn a precedent or NOT overturn a precedent, which would you take, if you weren't able to know the details of the case (blind testing) ?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

So, you're arguing that the court should have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick? Interesting. You're full of shit, but yet interesting...

Yes, precedents are important but as the justices I've quoted stated, not hard and fast rules. Of course, there is no precedent for what Obamacare is trying to do, which the court will soon determine.

And by the way, I'm not a conservative but don't let that stop your incoherent rants. It's fun to watch!

Did I say that? No. Strawman fail.

I merely pointed out that overturning a precedent is a LOT harder than going along with one.

Answer me this...if you were a betting man, and the wager was if a panel of judges would overturn a precedent or NOT overturn a precedent, which would you take, if you weren't able to know the details of the case (blind testing) ?

What precedent is there for taxing a person for inactivity based on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

Are you retarded or something?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

.

You lie, but then again, you are a Liberal. Roscoe was engaging in commerce with said wheat production:

'Roscoe Curtiss Filburn had a farm near Dayton, Ohio where he raised poultry and produced dairy products for the market.'

Roscoe Filburn's Farm


The individual mandate, of course, forces people to participate in commerce in order to regulate it.

Liberals don't lie, progressives and populists do, along with right wing nuts and left wing moonbats

 

[Skull Pilot]

Only an idiot like Deceptimoron would think that the government ordering people to destroy crops they grow for their own personal consumption is a good thing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

.

You lie, but then again, you are a Liberal. Roscoe was engaging in commerce with said wheat production:

'Roscoe Curtiss Filburn had a farm near Dayton, Ohio where he raised poultry and produced dairy products for the market.'

Roscoe Filburn's Farm


The individual mandate, of course, forces people to participate in commerce in order to regulate it.

Liberals don't lie, progressives and populists do, along with right wing nuts and left wing moonbats

Liar

dishonesty is not a trait that any party is excluded from in politics. People yes, political ideologies no.

 

[Decepticon]

So, you're arguing that the court should have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick? Interesting. You're full of shit, but yet interesting...

Yes, precedents are important but as the justices I've quoted stated, not hard and fast rules. Of course, there is no precedent for what Obamacare is trying to do, which the court will soon determine.

And by the way, I'm not a conservative but don't let that stop your incoherent rants. It's fun to watch!

Did I say that? No. Strawman fail.

I merely pointed out that overturning a precedent is a LOT harder than going along with one.

Answer me this...if you were a betting man, and the wager was if a panel of judges would overturn a precedent or NOT overturn a precedent, which would you take, if you weren't able to know the details of the case (blind testing) ?

What precedent is there for taxing a person for inactivity based on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

Are you retarded or something?

I don't know...why don't you ask Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General?



Charles Fried is a professor of law at Harvard University. From 1985 to 1989, he served as President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. He specializes in constitutional law and is the author of many books on the subject, including 2004’s “Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court.” He also wrote a brief on behalf of 104 law professors arguing that the individual mandate is constitutional. We spoke this morning.


Charles Fried, who served as Reagan’s top lawyer, was not impressed by the Supreme Court yesterday. (Harvard Law School)
Ezra Klein: Tuesday’s arguments seemed to focus on the question of a “limiting principle.” So is there a limiting principle here?

Charles Fried: First of all, the limiting principle point kind of begs the question. It assumes there’s got to be some kind of articulatable limiting principle and that’s in the Constitution somewhere. What Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1824 is that if something is within the power of Congress, Congress may exercise that power to its fullest extent. So the question is really whether this is in the power of Congress.

Now, is it within the power of Congress? Well, the power of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce. Is health care commerce among the states? Nobody except maybe Clarence Thomas doubts that. So health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.
Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.’ - The Washington Post

What part of that didn't you understand?

A farmer, who has grown wheat in the past, not participating in the market for wheat has no impact upon the wheat market?
Really?

or in this case....people will NEVER participate in the health care system?

What an interesting theory you have. Do you have any literature for your belief system?

 

[Dr.House]

who was being forced to buy farmer roscoe's wheat?

conz!!!!!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

who was being forced to buy farmer roscoe's wheat?

conz!!!!!!

retaahded conz

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

who was being forced to buy farmer roscoe's wheat?

conz!!!!!!

are you by any chance an airline pilot? for jet blue?

Overhead Bin - Airline crew member mental health in spotlight after captain's breakdown

 

[Decepticon]

So, you're arguing that the court should have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick? Interesting. You're full of shit, but yet interesting...

Yes, precedents are important but as the justices I've quoted stated, not hard and fast rules. Of course, there is no precedent for what Obamacare is trying to do, which the court will soon determine.

And by the way, I'm not a conservative but don't let that stop your incoherent rants. It's fun to watch!

Did I say that? No. Strawman fail.

I merely pointed out that overturning a precedent is a LOT harder than going along with one.

Answer me this...if you were a betting man, and the wager was if a panel of judges would overturn a precedent or NOT overturn a precedent, which would you take, if you weren't able to know the details of the case (blind testing) ?

What precedent is there for taxing a person for inactivity based on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

Are you retarded or something?

CF: Activity and inactivity is not in the Constitution. Now, there are millions of cases that talk about the power to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, from which Randy Barnett drew the conclusion inactivity is not included. It just hadn’t come up!

And if 95 percent of them are in that market every five years, they’re in it. They haven’t put that off. They’ve gone to a health-care clinic. They’ve procured a prescription for a prescription drug. Ninety-five percent of the population! So where’s the inactivity?

The other thing is I think it’s Justice Kennedy who said this fundamentally changes the relationship of the citizen to the government. That’s an appalling piece of phony rhetoric. There is an important change between the government and the system. It was put in place in 1935, with Social Security. And it said everyone has to pay into a retirement fund, and an unemployment fund. It was done when Medicare came in in the ’60s. That’s a fundamental change. But this? This is simply a rounding out in a particular area of a relation between the citizen and the government that’s been around for 70 years.

Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.’ - The Washington Post


That clear enough for you low grade morons?

 

[Dr.House]

conz!!!!!!

are you by any chance an airline pilot? for jet blue?

Overhead Bin - Airline crew member mental health in spotlight after captain's breakdown

Still obsessing over me, Dainty?

Does Bawney Fwank know you want me bad? He gonna be jealous, boy...

 

[skookerasbil]

Ask me?

How much am I loving the k00ks getting even more miserable than they are?

And to my conservative pals..........if you have time tonight, take a gander over to MSNBC and watch these hosts interview their guests tonight. Its like they are sitting on a red hot poker the size of a King Kong telephone pole. These fuckers are beside themselves, such is their fury. Its cant miss TV.

Meanwhile..........go over to DRUDGE and check out the proceedings from today in the SCOTUS. Calling it epIc pwnage doesnt even describe it!!! These people had months to prepare for this..........and are being made to look like half-wits.

Ask me if Im giddy???



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/28/toobin_hard_to_imagine_how_things_could_be_going_worse_for_obama_administration.html

 

[eflatminor]

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

So, you're arguing that the court should have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick? Interesting. You're full of shit, but yet interesting...

Yes, precedents are important but as the justices I've quoted stated, not hard and fast rules. Of course, there is no precedent for what Obamacare is trying to do, which the court will soon determine.

And by the way, I'm not a conservative but don't let that stop your incoherent rants. It's fun to watch!

Did I say that? No. Strawman fail.

I merely pointed out that overturning a precedent is a LOT harder than going along with one.

Answer me this...if you were a betting man, and the wager was if a panel of judges would overturn a precedent or NOT overturn a precedent, which would you take, if you weren't able to know the details of the case (blind testing) ?

Your question has no bearing on the topic at hand but of course, precedents tend to be upheld as I (and the dissenting judges) made clear. Doesn't change the fact there is no precedent to overturn with regard to Obamacare.

Your little rant has now past the point of ridiculousness. Off you go...