Commerce Clause : SCOTUS: Congress Authorized To Regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."


U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)


.
 
OP
Contumacious

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."


U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)


.
So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.

.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."


U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)


.
So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.

.
Interesting. I wonder if this too will be used in the suit against the Federal Government by the 14 States' Attorneys?

And what of Article 1 Section 9?:eusa_think:
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,671
Reaction score
9,672
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Since Health Care can not be sold across State lines this destroys the entire premise that the health care bill is Interstate commerce.
 
OP
Contumacious

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Since Health Care can not be sold across State lines this destroys the entire premise that the health care bill is Interstate commerce.

And whom is impeding the Commerce? Congress in difiance of the Commerce Clause.

Yes, indeed . They are doing violence to the Constitution.

.
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."


U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)


.
So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.

.
Interesting. I wonder if this too will be used in the suit against the Federal Government by the 14 States' Attorneys?

And what of Article 1 Section 9?:eusa_think:
Definately will be used...it establishes precedent.
 

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even non-economic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.
From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even non-economic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.
From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
 

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even non-economic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.
From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
 

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Reality Check

The Radicalized Clowns @ USMB, are clueless. The idea that the Right Wing in America is using the lawsuit nonsense to keep their base hysterical and motivated is lost on them. The thought that cynical right wing politicians are using this issue to win elections, while acknowledging they think the lawsuits stand a slim chance of winning is anathema to the hysterical Radical Clowns @ USMB.

Self-Delusion has become the latest prerequisite for membership in the right wing.
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.
that remains to be seen doesn't it.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
I heard. But the Radicalized Clowns @ USMB will only attack you, your source, and anything else. Delusion takes no hostages.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
14 politicians? 14 politicians running for election? I thought the Tea Party wanted to throw all the bums out?

I guess not all bums are created equal.
 

KissMy

Free Breast Exam
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
15,862
Reaction score
2,978
Points
255
Location
In your head
Since Health Care can not be sold across State lines this destroys the entire premise that the health care bill is Interstate commerce.
Antitrust exemption from Interstate commerce for the insurance industry was established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. The insurance industry is exempt from antitrust violations - price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations.

Narrowing or eliminating the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for the "business of insurance" has been pursued for many years in many Congresses. Bills (H.R.3596, S.1681 (each titled the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009); section 262 of H.R. 3962 (the Affordable Health Care for America Act)) are applicable only to the provision of health and medical malpractice insurance. The stand-alone bills would prohibit issuers of such insurance from engaging in "price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing" health or medical malpractice insurance. Section 262 of H.R. 3962 does not specify particular, prohibited activities, mandating instead that nothing in McCarran-Ferguson shall prevent the application of "the antitrust laws to the business of health [or medical malpractice] insurance."
 
Last edited:

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Since Health Care can not be sold across State lines this destroys the entire premise that the health care bill is Interstate commerce.
Antitrust exemption from Interstate commerce for the insurance industry was established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. The insurance industry is exempt from antitrust violations - price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations.

Narrowing or eliminating the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for the "business of insurance" has been pursued for many years in many Congresses. Bills (H.R.3596, S.1681 (each titled the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009); section 262 of H.R. 3962 (the Affordable Health Care for America Act)) are applicable only to the provision of health and medical malpractice insurance. The stand-alone bills would prohibit issuers of such insurance from engaging in "price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing" health or medical malpractice insurance. Section 262 of H.R. 3962 does not specify particular, prohibited activities, mandating instead that nothing in McCarran-Ferguson shall prevent the application of "the antitrust laws to the business of health [or medical malpractice] insurance."
thanks, but you're wasting your time.
 
OP
Contumacious

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.
Is that why these State's Attorneys have filed the suits to protect the interests of their respective States, as they are bound to do by their respective State Constitutions?

Is this also why that about 36 State Legislatures have crafted legislation to protect themselves from Federally mandated LAW that they cannot afford?

Many are BROKE or on the brink of it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top