Skip to main content

View Diary: Jefferson supported government-run health care (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think the healthcare law is constitutional (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm just saying your argument is bad.

    By the way, though the 21st Amendment doesn't apply to marijuana, but I would still really question whether Congress can rely on the Commerce Clause to make it illegal only for people under the age of 18 to smoke marijuana.  That would seem at lot closer to United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez than it does to Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich.

    •  NO, the argument is GOOD (0+ / 0-)

      If regulation of alcohol were returned to Congress (as it is indisputably otherwise interstate commerce), Congress would clearly have a rational basis for concluding that it's sale should be limited to adults.

      your protections against arbitrary legislation come from the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, not the commerce clause.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 07:13:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no idea what you are taking about (0+ / 0-)

        Perhaps because you keep raising nonsequiturs because you realized that what you said in the first post in this thread was totally wrong, but don't want to admit to it.  Perhaps because you don't understand the Constitution all that well.  Perhaps a little of both.

        I'm an attorney, and although I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I know the basics of commerce clause jurisprudence and federalism.  If you want to disagree with me, go for it.

        •  You raised the non sequitur (0+ / 0-)

          by invoking the drinking age.

          Whether you realize it or not, your point about limitations on Congress was a throwback to the 1920s--at best.

          Ok, so I read the polls.

          by andgarden on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 08:49:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The drinking age (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            along with bigamy, prostitution and trespassing are all examples of things that states can regulate via their policies powers, but that Congress cannot via the Commerce Clause.  They were to illustrate the point that the fact that Massachusetts can pass a law does not mean that Congress can pass the same law.

            A state can pass any law that the Constitution does not forbid, whereas Congress can pass only pass laws that the Constitution allows. The Supremacy Clause only covers the area of concurrent jurisdiction between the two.

            Your claim that there have been no restrictions on the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis the states since the 1920s is frankly bizarre.

            •  Lopez and Printz notwithstanding (0+ / 0-)

              there is no meaningful limitation on the power of Congress to regulate. Not in the modern era.

              Any suggestion otherwise is pointless reinforcement of right wing judicial activism.

              Ok, so I read the polls.

              by andgarden on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 09:12:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site