Replying to a message of TIM RICHARDSON to ROSS SAUER:

 TR> On 12-13-10, ROSS SAUER said to JEFF BINKLEY:


 RS>> "Jeff Binkley -> All"  wrote in
 RS>> news:31653$POL_INC{at}JamNNTPd:

 JB>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870372780457601755222961
 JB>> 523 0.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection

 JB>> With Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional, the libs will flip out.

 RS>> Judge appointed by Bush younger.

 RS>> Virginia AG who is a fundy nutcase.

 RS>> Judge also is part owner of a right-wing PR firm.

 RS>> All just business-as-usual in the right-wing...

 TR> Read the Constitution.

 TR> There is nowhere in the Constitution that authorizes the Congress or
 TR> the president of the United States to mandate that the citizens buy
 TR> anything.

That depends on how far they can stretch "regulate commerce among the
states."
Back in the 1940s a fellow was tried, convicted and jailed under that clause because
he was *NOT* participating in commerce.  The court held that his non-participation 
in commerce (in this case growing his own grain to feed his own cattle) was in fact
affecting "commerce among the states" and therefore subject to
government regulation.

Note that the original purpose of that phrase was to prevent the various states from
placing import, export or transit duties on goods received from other states, sent to
other states, or just passing through enroute from and to other states.  The *only*
legitimate use of that clause in recent memory was when the feds wouldn't allow the
state of Wyoming to enact a 'severance tax' on coal shipped out of the state.

 TR> We'll see what happens when it gets to the Supreme Court.

That depends, too.  See preceding.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+