Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama might have a Supreme Court majority on the health care law (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't get your arguments in those diaries (0+ / 0-)

    either, and it's not due to complete ignorance of these issues.  We did study under some of the same people, after all.  I think that I get everything you're saying except for why inactivity being treated the same as activity is settled law.  I think that your answer is that because (and this is just my gloss) "it is necessary and proper to effectuate permissible regulation of activity (even non-economic activity) with a substantial effect on interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause" -- but that still contains that stubborn word "activity," which goads me but apparently not you.

    Can you say in 1-2 sentences why you think that it is settled law that what I call "inactivity" (the mere state of being) is to be treated the same way as "activity" (which we all agree is liable to regulation) under whatever applicable combination you of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause you think must be applied?

    I have a hard time believing that I'm the only one who doesn't get it; I have an easy time believing that we're simply arguing at cross-purposes.

    I look forward to the post you mention.  Sounds interesting.

    In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

    by Seneca Doane on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 08:34:43 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site