true, but opponents of Obama Care will argue that Wickard v. Filburn demonstrates a subtle difference: i.e. prohibiting a person from growing crops vs telling somebody they must buy something....which is not an enumerated power. Definitely, there's a gray area and a slippery slope; but I predict - there's sufficient Libertarian opposition among the Court members to draw the line on forcing somebody to buy goods....(in general). Of course, encomonically speaking, certain activities ultimately amount to the same thing, since taxing people then allocating the $ for discretionary purposes ultimately boils down to forcing the people to "buy" the goods...(perhaps against their indivicual wills). ... http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/34497.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@...> wrote: > > Your prediction may be correct; the narrowest of margins is "one", and if the > healthcare law fails in the Supreme Court it will be a 5/4 decision along the > predictable political axis that is in place. > > The Commerce Clause, however, is an extremely broad and elastic power, > exercised exclusively by the federal government. One of its most broad > reaching decisions, Wickard v. Filburn, reached in 1942, held that Congress > had the ability, under the Commerce Clause, to prohibit a farmer to grow his > own wheat for his own family's consumption, because the more the farmer > produced for his own consumption, the less he would buy, and, consequently, > he would be affecting the demand for wheat and it's interstate price. In his > article, posted earlier today, Winkler references that decision. > > If the Supremes follow their own precedent then the Affordable Health Care > Act should be safe, but politics frequently trumps precedence, and I couldn't > confidently gainsay your prediction. > > *** > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > Center, shown with G. Alfred Townsend and David Gray; 1871, by Matthew > > Brady. > > > > http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/34504.jpg > > > > Bonus prediction on Supreme Court consideration of Obama-Care. Will be > > declared unconstituional by a narrow margin. (Scalia can't be counted on to > > be an Obama booster). > > ... > > Boils down to key words "necessary and proper", as applied to enumerated > > powers (commerce among others). > > Possible arguments in favor of Obama Care: Medicare is a precident and it > > fits into the same category. Wrong. Medicare is a welfare program, not an > > interstate commerce; thus not in the same category as forcing somebody to > > buy something, say a car. > > ... > > Thus, inclusion under the umbrella of necessary and proper is pretty > > flimsey and won't fly. Will be rejected by the narrowest of margins. > > >
