Neoneocon is Nervous...

polifrog

Me too:

It's not about Obamacare, although that does matter to me. But whatever way the Court rules, the ultimate fate of Obamacare will be determined by the upcoming election. If the Democrats are victorious, Obamacare can be easily fixed to eliminate the individual mandate and call it a tax, if need be. If Republicans take control, the bill can be repealed or unfunded, even if SCOTUS decides to uphold its constitutionality tomorrow.

I'm far more concerned with the precedent the Court will set regarding the further expansion of the Commerce Clause. If the Court fails to declare a federal mandate of this type unconstitutional, that would be an enormous triumph for "progressives"---far beyond the momentary victory of the Court's upholding Obamacare.]

It is my hope that ObamaCare is a bridge too far regarding the ridiculous expansion of the Commerce Clause we have seen since Wickard v Fillburn  and that the court overturns Wickard v. Fillburn.  I doubt that will happen.  However, I would be pleased to see our currently open ended  Commerce Clause limited.







out

Wickard Vs Filburn to be Overturned by ObamaCare...

polifrog

Roscoe Filburn chose not to engage in commerce but the US Supreme Court found that not engaging in commerce affects  interstate commerce due to the fact that such a decision removes demand on an product traded between the states.  In this case wheat.

Their decision was one that allowed the government the power to force individuals to engage in commerce.

Wiki:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

ObamaCare leans heavily on this false interpretation of the Commerce Clause, one made under  duress of the Great Depression.  Of course, the intent of the commerce clause was to promote, as much as possible, voluntary trade  among the states so as to make trade free flowing ... regular.  It was in that vein that the federal government was allowed the power to regulate trade --- to make trade  regular whether among the states or with other nations.

Is that what ObmaCare does?  Does ObamaCare promote free and voluntary trade or does it stifle trade in bureaucracy, fines, penalties and coercion? How is ObamaCare materially different from the barriers to trade that once promised our nation weakness? None.

It is likely that ObamaCare will be found unconstitutional, but ObamaCare's real impact will be more than political.  That real impact will be the direct  result of ObamaCare's overreach via its reliance on the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause will be reigned in by overturning Wickard Vs Filburn...





out