Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act: Is the mandate constitutional? (372 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  umm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cheez Whiz

    did you read my correction, that I posted 5 minutes before your comment?

    •  I did, and probably should have used a different (0+ / 0-)

      subject line.

      Two things:

      1. The ruling was that he actually WAS engaging in interstate commerce by growing the wheat because it affected prices and supply at the local market and on surrounding markets, including those out-of-state.

      2.  He was forced to disengage from commerce, not to engage in it. That's the opposite of the ACA's individual mandate.

      I hate that case, btw.  I think it fully justifies the "parade of horribles" predictions made by those decrying expansion of the commerce clause.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 08:02:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  however (0+ / 0-)

        1) he WAS engaging in interstate commerce by NOT engaging in interstate commerce (they said he wasn't buying wheat for chicken-scratch because he was growing it himself).

        2) he wasn't forced to disengage from commerce. He was forced to destroy his own crops, which he was using INSTEAD of engaging in commerce. His being self-sufficient affected interstate commerce because he wasn't buying wheat.

        That case is why we can have things like clean air regulations (mostly because it represented the shift in the Court to more expansive regulatory power). So I love that case.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site