JMS synopsis of the Obama Care Supreme Court Hearings..

[Madison Redskin]

I'm not saying any such thing. I'm saying the constituion says "Congress has the right to regulate Commerse between the states".

Find me one person in this thread who says otherwise.

You are saying because the constitution doesn't explicitely lay out what kind of regulation is allowed they don't actually have that right.

I have never said and would never say the federal government may only do what is explictly and specifically authorized by the plain text of the Constitution. You really need to read others' posts (including mine) more carefully.

The federal governments ability to mandate citizens do things is very very very well established. From the Militia Acts of 1792, which required citizens make purchases of firearms; To the mandate to pay taxes, to the mandate to buy workman compensation insurance, to the mandate we register for the selective service... Government mandates things all the time, that's simple fact.

Again, you are arguing with imaginary posters. No one has said the federal government may never mandate anything.

And, no, there is not 180 years of precedent which stands for the proposition that Congress may mandate that everyone buy health insurance. This is a matter of first impression. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause quite liberally in many cases and afforded great weight to Congressional determinations regarding interstate commerce, but that does not amount to controlling precedent or otherwise dictate that the Supreme Court must uphold Obamacare. Context matters.

You're entitled to your opinion and many intelligent and knowledgeable legal scholars have concluded that Obamacare is constitutional, but if you think this is a "slam dunk" case (as you characterized it earlier in this thread), you need to dig a little deeper.

Not a bad thing, but an activist thing. an extrodinary thing. Literally writing a new definition into our lexicon along ideological lines. In the case of the conservatives, also a hypocritical thing.

I need to understand your position here. You're fine with "judicial activism," agree it's not necessarily a bad thing, and note that moderates have "lived off it" for years. Does that mean you would not have any problem with the Court being "activist" here and overturning Obamacare? You would only have a problem with conservatives who railed against activism, right?

EDIT - FWIW, I hate the phrase "judicial activism" and attacks on courts that essentially amount to "it's constitutional because Congress passed it."

[Mister Happy]

(2) Should the commerse clause be interpreted broadly? Answer, we've got more than 100 years of supreme court precident supporting such interpretation dating back to 1830's.

Let me make this very simple:

Was the Social Security Act upheld by the Supreme Court based on the Commerce Clause? Yes or No.

It is a Yes or No question. That means I only want to see 1 word - either Yes or No. Nothing else.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer.

[Larry]

deleted post.