Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member butterbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,181
    This is great news. But I know that the democrats will vote that it is constitutional and the republicans will vote that its not. I already heard Bacus rambling off a list of professors and consitutional "experts" that said it was constitutional. I hope the republicans can counter with better and more recognized experts in constitutional law. I PRAY THAT THIS BILL WILL FINALLY DIE!
    RIP Butterbean! We miss you and hope you are well in heaven.-- Your ALIPAC friends

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12
    April
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by butterbean
    This is great news. But I know that the democrats will vote that it is constitutional and the republicans will vote that its not. I already heard Bacus rambling off a list of professors and consitutional "experts" that said it was constitutional. I hope the republicans can counter with better and more recognized experts in constitutional law. I PRAY THAT THIS BILL WILL FINALLY DIE!
    The Interstate Commerce Clause

    Advocates of the individual mandate, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, have claimed that the Supreme Court's "Commerce Clause" jurisprudence leaves "no doubt" that the insurance requirement is a constitutional exercise of that power.[10]

    They are wrong.

    The Commerce Clause, set forth in Article I, section 8, grants Congress the authority "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."[11] From the Founding, both Congress and the Supreme Court have struggled to define the limits of that authority, but it has always been understood that some limit exists beyond which Congress may not go. To be sure, the Supreme Court has been deferential to congressional claims of authority to regulate commerce since 1937. Yet, even as it allowed Congress to exercise expansive powers over the national economy, the New Deal Supreme Court declared that:

    The authority of the federal government may not be pushed to such an extreme as to destroy the distinction, which the commerce clause itself establishes, between commerce "among the several States" and the internal concerns of a State. That distinction between what is national and what is local in the activities of commerce is vital to the maintenance of our federal system.
    12

    http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-182554.html

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •