|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
I think that was the point, that the court seems to be reversing itself on an
excessive interpretation of the Commerce Clause authority without acknowledging
it. (To get extremely nitpicky, which may not be wise without poring over every
detail of both cases and the arguments advanced in each, one could point out a
possible distinction between pure inaction (or
inaction-with-possible-subsequent-action) and action-with-subsequent-inaction,
e.g. growing marijuana for personal use is an action with theoretical
connection, however tenuous, to interstate commerce, whereas failing to purchase
insurance is an inaction, and if it leads to the eventual action of consuming
guaranteed healthcare resources later, the window of opportunity to regulate
enters there, where it's arguably too late to be of use to the desired
outcome...)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
And still find it amusing that the Federal Government doesn't have the power
under the Commerce Clause to force me to purchase broccoli, but does have the
power to prohibit me to purchase broccoli - or anything else but broccoli.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|