 This is required seeing, or you'll lose your place in line |
|
|
drummerick
|
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Commerce Clause and smug Liberals
10 comments:
-
OregonGuy said...
-
Throw in Douglas' penumbras from Griswold, and you realize that the Courts have no limitations in their proceedings, as well.
. -
8/26/10, 12:41 PM
-
Gayle Miller said...
-
The guy from UC Irvine is a simpleton! Smug, serenely convinced of his own brilliance.
-
8/26/10, 1:13 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
He is indeed a poster boy for the smug, condescending, pointy headed liberal genre.
-
8/26/10, 1:45 PM
-
TimO said...
-
B-52 the Ivy League schools with the smarmy over-edumacated morons inside who are f'ing up everything and this country would turn itself back around within ten years.....
-
8/26/10, 2:03 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
From Mr. Smug, I hated his comment about forcing people what to eat violated personal freedoms but no one had the right not to have healthcare! Talk about lawyerese word twisting that falls into the category of "depends on what your definition of is is". That comment alone made me see red. BTW, this was posted to a motorcycle group forum and everyone that commented agreed that Mr. Smarm on the video clip should be hung. drummermanrick
-
8/26/10, 2:59 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
Well he's prolly not, but he damned well could be hanged!
-
8/26/10, 4:09 PM
-
DougM said...
-
All personal behavior (food, recreation, job, method of transport, residence, personal associations, etc.) has an effect on your risk for disease or injury, i.e. your health-care costs. Therefore, if health care is under Federal control, so is freakin' everything else.
-
8/26/10, 5:46 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
"but there's not a freedom to not have medical care", WTF does that even mean? That's not even a rational sentence. I agree with drummermanrick, that little comment pissed me off to no end.
phaatbastard -
8/26/10, 7:50 PM
-
Astoria said...
-
The Supreme Court has made some astoundingly bad decisions over the years.
[i]Wickard v. Filburn[/i] is one of their worst. In their minds, the power to regulate interstate commerce can be used to regulate any "commerce" because [i]not[/i] engaging in commerce, interstate or not, affects interstate commerce. Got that? Me neither. But it's the law. Respect it or pay the penalty.
Naturally, they soon extended the definition of "commerce" to include any human activity to which can be assigned a cost, however arbitrary.
In this way, they have given themselves the power to regulate [i]anything[/i]. This is exactly the sort of intrusive, over-reaching government that the Constitution was trying to prevent.
What can we do now? I fear it may be too late to restore sensible, limited government by the ballot box. -
8/26/10, 9:08 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Oh Rog, thank you-Hugh Hewitt has had these two men on his show for years in a segment he calls "The Smart Guys" And Irwin is just the wussy looking prig I've wanted to sock in the face all this time.
There has not been one time when this assclown hasn't pulled some fairy land meaning out of the Constitution to allow any and all outrageous acts.
John Eastman just ran for AG of CA and is a Constitutional scholar. He was threatening to, yaknow, actually enforce the Constitution and my, the ads that were run against him were, disgusting.
He narrowly lost the primary and you can bet your ass, Obama breathed a sigh of relief because Eastman was bringing a slew of suits to challenge the Federal government's authority.
Too bad.
MM -
8/27/10, 9:47 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)