Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[The T]

He has abandoned his thread once he realized he was wrong and his talking points of hate wouldn't get him any traction as a distraction.

He hasn't been back in a couple of days...hmmmm...

 

[The T]

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.

Now we know why you're not a judge, dope.

Deception's dumber than a sack of broken doorknobs.

With parts discontinued to fix them...

 

[Crackerjack]

He has abandoned his thread once he realized he was wrong and his talking points of hate wouldn't get him any traction as a distraction.

He hasn't been back in a couple of days...hmmmm...

I noticed it had been a little less stupid around here recently.

 

[daveman]

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.

Now we know why you're not a judge, dope.

Allow me to correct your punctuation.

"Now we know why you're not a judge: Dope."

 

[Intense]

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.

Funny that you would cite Atrocities such as this. If this one isn't ripe for being reversed, we are in worse trouble than you know. You may consider yourself the Property of the State, which is why you don't see the Red Flags here. Pretty mindless of you to want to Compound the Travesty and Injustice here. Good of the State My Ass. Shame on you, you Fascist Pig.

 

[Chris]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

 

[Conservative]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

quite possibly the biggest lie ever told on this board. Congrats, limp-dick. You're a bigger liar than TM.

 

[Chris]

As long as pharmaceutical and insurance money controls lawmaker policy we will never join the rest of the civilized world in adopting a single-payer health care system, negotiating drug costs, etc.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As long as pharmaceutical and insurance money controls lawmaker policy we will never join the rest of the civilized world in adopting a single-payer health care system, negotiating drug costs, etc.

No...A well informed electorate will keep out socialized rationed care.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Of course that potus was fdr the biggest socialist potus to date. Your point?

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama didnt concede a single point on that health care bill. He didnt even attempt to work with Republicans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

Concession to Republicans?

You are delusional.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

Chris your memory of Obamacare is murky.

The bill passed without ONE single republican vote, there were no concessions made to republicans. The mandate was Obama and his Adminstration's baby, sure they might have copied a HORRIBLE republican idea but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Crackerjack]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

Chris your memory of Obamacare is murky.

The bill passed without ONE single republican vote, there were no concessions made to republicans. The mandate was Obama and his Adminstration's baby, sure they might have copied a HORRIBLE republican idea but that doesn't make it right.

Actually, there's no way anyone could possibly know if there was any sort of concession or not, as nobody actually read the entirety of the bill before they voted on it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

Chris your memory of Obamacare is murky.

The bill passed without ONE single republican vote, there were no concessions made to republicans. The mandate was Obama and his Adminstration's baby, sure they might have copied a HORRIBLE republican idea but that doesn't make it right.

Actually, there's no way anyone could possibly know if there was any sort of concession or not, as nobody actually read the entirety of the bill before they voted on it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw]John Conyers on Reading the Healthcare Bill - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

Chris your memory of Obamacare is murky.

The bill passed without ONE single republican vote, there were no concessions made to republicans. The mandate was Obama and his Adminstration's baby, sure they might have copied a HORRIBLE republican idea but that doesn't make it right.

They made the concessions and STILL no republicans voted for it. They ended up being concessions to the blue dogs, but they were Republican ideas none the less. The FACT is that the Affordable Care Act is almost EXACTLY like the GOP plan introduced to counter HillaryCare. So why would republicans not vote for their OWN idea? Why, because they had already decided that no matter what was proposed, they would oppose it. That's been their MO from the beginning. Their STATED number one goal wasn't affordable health care, jobs or anything else that would help the American people. Their STATED number one goal was to make President Obama a one term President.

 

[driveby]

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.

Producer - one that produces; especially : one that grows agricultural products or manufactures .

Consumer - one that utilizes economic goods .


Hope this helps......

 

[Seawytch]

The Affordable Care Act wasn't just chock full of concession to Republicans, it was practically the plan they introduced in 1993. For example:

• Universal access to health insurance coverage, in part through premium assistance to low-income individuals who don't quality for Medicaid (ultimately up to 240% of the federal poverty line)
• A mandate on employers to provide health insurance plans to employees
• Requirements for qualified heath plans to meet standards of
• guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage
• nondiscrimination based on health status (i.e. eliminating pre-existing conditions)
• benefits offered
• insurer financial solvency
• enrollment process
• premium rating limitations (allowing variation in premiums based only on age and family)
• risk adjustment
• consumer protection
• The formation of individual and small employer purchasing groups
• Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, establish standards for large employer plans similar to requirements applicable to small employer plans
• Formation of a Benefits Commission to develop a standard (minimum) benefits package that any qualified health benefits plan must offer
• Enumeration of state responsibilities in implementing state insurance market reforms
• An individual mandate requiring all citizens to be covered by a health plan
• Certain alterations to tax law, including an excise tax for excess contributions to medical care savings accounts
• Quality assurance programs, including the creation of a national health data system
• Medical liability reform, including a requirement that states adopt an alternative dispute resolution method for the resolution of health care malpractice claims
• Efforts to fight fraud and abuse in federal health programs
• Efforts to bolster the primary care workforce

Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993

The bill was introduced by Republican John Chafee and counted Republican Senate Minority leader Bob Dole among its co-sponsors, as well as several Republican Senators ; Kit Bond, Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

Chris your memory of Obamacare is murky.

The bill passed without ONE single republican vote, there were no concessions made to republicans. The mandate was Obama and his Adminstration's baby, sure they might have copied a HORRIBLE republican idea but that doesn't make it right.

They made the concessions and STILL no republicans voted for it. They ended up being concessions to the blue dogs, but they were Republican ideas none the less. The FACT is that the Affordable Care Act is almost EXACTLY like the GOP plan introduced to counter HillaryCare. So why would republicans not vote for their OWN idea? Why, because they had already decided that no matter what was proposed, they would oppose it. That's been their MO from the beginning. Their STATED number one goal wasn't affordable health care, jobs or anything else that would help the American people. Their STATED number one goal was to make President Obama a one term President.

If they made any REAL or MEANINGFUL concessoins they would have got republican votes, yet they got none. Actions speak louder than words

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The Affordable Care Act wasn't just chock full of concession to Republicans, it was practically the plan they introduced in 1993. For example:

• Universal access to health insurance coverage, in part through premium assistance to low-income individuals who don't quality for Medicaid (ultimately up to 240% of the federal poverty line)
• A mandate on employers to provide health insurance plans to employees
• Requirements for qualified heath plans to meet standards of
• guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage
• nondiscrimination based on health status (i.e. eliminating pre-existing conditions)
• benefits offered
• insurer financial solvency
• enrollment process
• premium rating limitations (allowing variation in premiums based only on age and family)
• risk adjustment
• consumer protection
• The formation of individual and small employer purchasing groups
• Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, establish standards for large employer plans similar to requirements applicable to small employer plans
• Formation of a Benefits Commission to develop a standard (minimum) benefits package that any qualified health benefits plan must offer
• Enumeration of state responsibilities in implementing state insurance market reforms
• An individual mandate requiring all citizens to be covered by a health plan
• Certain alterations to tax law, including an excise tax for excess contributions to medical care savings accounts
• Quality assurance programs, including the creation of a national health data system
• Medical liability reform, including a requirement that states adopt an alternative dispute resolution method for the resolution of health care malpractice claims
• Efforts to fight fraud and abuse in federal health programs
• Efforts to bolster the primary care workforce

Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993

The bill was introduced by Republican John Chafee and counted Republican Senate Minority leader Bob Dole among its co-sponsors, as well as several Republican Senators ; Kit Bond, Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley.

Nice spin, wonder why that never became law if it was so good?