Log In | Register
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself "substantially affect" interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are "reasonably adapted" to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.
Justice Scalia: Health Care Mandates are Constitutional
Seeded on Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:13 PM EDT
Article Source: Think Progress- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (10)
So first: That’s Justice Scalia. Second: Purchasing health insurance is clearly economic activity, and the state of the health insurance market in any given state clearly does substantially affect interstate commerce. As is generally the case with words in the English language, the phrase “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” could be construed in a few different ways. But for a very long time now the Supreme Court—including its most conservative members—have construed it as authorizing general economic activity. The live legal disputes concern regulation of non-economic activity that’s alleged to have economic impacts.
I wonder if the Attorneys General that filed the lawsuit were aware of this?
Arguably the most conservative member of the SCOTUS on the record as saying its constitutional . . . . seems like they would have done their research.
- 5 votes
#1 - Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:14 PM EDTThank god this part of the conversation can stop. If Scalia say's it, it's good enough for me.
Of course the Teabaggers won't believe him, they will think he was drugged by a liberal to say this.
- 3 votes
#2 - Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:40 PM EDTYeah, that's why we only have one supreme court justice because that's all it takes.
- 2 votes
That pretty much torpedoes the the court route doesn't it.
- 2 votes
#3 - Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:57 PM EDTSo why do the lawyers keep putting things before the whole supreme court? According to your logic, all the lawyers have to do is get one justice that agrees with them and that means they win.
Or is that only when the liberals agree with the justice's opinion? When they don't agree the opinion, then they're wrong and the liberals are right.
- 2 votes
Scalia is the most conservative justice on the supreme court, if the suits end up going to court, it'll ultimately end up there. If the most conservative justice can't jump on board what makes you think any of the others will.
- 3 votes
Or is that only when the liberals agree with the justice's opinion?
Are you calling Scalia Liberal? He'd likely not appreciate that.
- 2 votes
If the rest of the Supreme Court agrees with Scalia then the next step is to draft a Constitutional Amendment. If Congress will not cooperate with that process then the states have to call for a Constitutional Convention to draft one.
The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves!
- 3 votes
#4 - Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:08 PM EDTJustice Scalia said what?
Ronnie Ray-Gun must be spinning in his grave.
- 3 votes
#5 - Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:23 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
