…see any limits to government power? Nope. Like Elena Kagan, they’re totalitarians. But with smiley faces. Because, you know, it’s for our own good.
5 thoughts on “Do The Pro-ObamaCare Lawyers…?”
Comments are closed.
…see any limits to government power? Nope. Like Elena Kagan, they’re totalitarians. But with smiley faces. Because, you know, it’s for our own good.
Comments are closed.
Well, at least they’re honest… D:
All totalitarians have smiley faces until you step out of line. The only question is how much red tape lies between you and your inevitable demise.
And I have to say that I’m not impressed by the reasoning. I don’t see the laws surrounding labor unions being a good idea constitutionally. So arguing that we should be able to force people to buy health insurance because we already force labor unions to break off strikes under certain circumstances, seems a little to me like saying it’s ok for the Vandals to sack Rome because the Visigoths set the precedent.
And once again, we see the fallacy of saying something is constitutional merely because the US Supreme Court didn’t block it (in this case, 75 years ago).
What if the problem is that the constitution doesn’t clearly say what believers in liberty think it says? What if the commerce clause does give congress the right to tell you to eat your broccoli?
If so, we need to amend that clause out of the constitution… then what? All the departments that derive their power from the commerce clause would have to go as well.
Hmmm. We may be on to something?
How does this proposed constitutional amendment sound?
The power granted to the federal government by the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution does not give the federal government any power with respect to items raised, mined, or produced in one state that never leave said state. Nor does said clause give the federal government any power to regulate anything that is never bought, sold, or exchanged.