Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid'

We are forced by the federal government to not discriminate. segregate, or commit murder. And to register our guns.

Ma R, your dystopian fantasy world puts Rick Santorum's to shame. And is as divorced from reality. THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND. Well, the 21st Century, anyway. Gosh, we may all be forced to be protected from financial ruin, improve the economy, and join the civilized world. I'm shaking all over!

One more time: Driving is a privilege. Secondly, the Constitution already deals with commerce between states and the SCOTUS has made several addendums.

NW, I usually consider your opinion as somewhat valid, but on this you have swallowed the Koolaid. Forget for a moment that allowing the mandate to stand could allow (most likely would eventually) the Federal government to dictate how every American spends their paycheck. What is also does is create a rotating dictatorial council that gets replaced two years.

You are a true believer in the power of good and powerful central governments, I am a true believer in the power of a limited and supportive central government. A government that follows the guidelines set down in the Constitution as secondary to the States. The mandate is a path toward domination and would eventually lead to a violent revolution, or a society of lemmings.

The commerce clause has gone from regulating an individual's right to grow food to trying to regulate a person's behavior from birth to death. What could go wrong with it in the future?

wow you almost had me convinced that my garden was under attack by the federal government

Wickard v. Filburn was a direct result of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. As you should know, that law was enacted to subsidize farmers for various agricultural products among them wheat. After a lower court concurred with Filburn the SC overturned that opinion, stating the federal government could regulate his wheat production from AAA of 1938 based on interstate commerce clause. This law has been superseded by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which is directed by Congress to subsidize farmers.

Since i am not a farmer, i do not qualify under the law to be regulated by the federal government and thus i can without fear grow whatever i want in my vegetable garden.

Actually, by planting a garden you probably can be considered a farmer. Let's face it, Filburn was growing wheat to feed his family and his livestock. By your definition he wasn't a farmer either.

If the mandate is upheld, there are no limits on what the Federal government can compel Americans to purchase, no matter what it is, because it is part of commerce. Chevez has that power and look at how that democracy has floundered. No government should have that much power over the citizens, especially an American government founded on the idea of a central government with limited powers. This is a disaster and telling 300,000,000 Americans that they have to allow their country to become a dictatorship because some President wants to cover less than 5% of its citizens under health insurance, with many of that 5% being young and choosing not to buy it, is a transformation from power being placed in the citizens hands to power being absolute under the Federal government. Which moonbat Senator was it that said that Congress can do anything it wants under the Commerce clause? Pete Stark I think it was, and just that statement alone should scare the bejesus out of anybody.

The point I was making, Ma R, is threefold: First, this is not the "unprecedented" expansion of federal power that its detractors make it out to be. Did the government take over every aspect of American life after the enactment of Social Security in 1935? Did we even dictate all retirement planning for all citizens, or do most rely on supplementing the guaranteed stipend of SS with 401k's, pensions, or IRAs? Do we tell everyone what they can spend their SS checks on every month, or can they use them to make car payments, buy food, pay the mortgage, or as my grandmother did, set aside every payment for seven years as a legacy to leave her grandchildren in a trust fund? It's a ridiculous argument. Did the wheat or dairy decisions of the '30s result in the collapse of the comodities markets and the imposition of socialism?

Second, have the citizens of every country in Europe, Canada, Japan, and most of the East (and especially Germany, which has the system closest to the ACA) become mindless automatons who allow the state to control every aspect of their lives, and are incapable of a capitalist thought or innovative enterprise, or has the freedom of having guaranteed health care freed them individually, and the corporations they work for, to be more competitive in the global marketplace? Are they rioting in the streets because they can't tolerate the state's imposition on their freedom of when they can get treatment for cancer, or heart attacks, or a broken bones, or because their infant mortality rates have plummeted and their longevity has increased?

And third, do you feel that you have no choice of insurance, and are deprived because your employer steals money from you to pay for your colleague's bypass surgery? Have you never used your sponsored insurance policy to set a child's broken bone, get low cost prescriptions for your heart condition or high cholesterol? Are you willing to forego your insurance and pay for all of your meds and health needs out of your pocket? Are you going to not accept your SS checks out of principle? Does your employer offer a variety of plans that you can enroll in based upon you and your family's needs?

And I guess, most importantly, are you really so self-centered that you'd prefer to deprive others of the opportunity for the kind of insurance coverage you have, just because they are unlucky enough to work for a company that can't afford to provide it?