How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To Stuff ObamaCare Down Our Throats

[CG6468]

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To Stuff ObamaCare Down Our Throats
FEBRUARY 28, 2012 BY DOUG BOOK

In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.”

In the Wickard v Filburn case, the Court opened to Congress the nearly unlimited power to exercise legislative authority relating to virtually ANYTHING Congress may define as “commerce among the several states.” The Ohio farmer had been fined $117 because he grew winter wheat in excess of the quantity permitted by quota in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

And even though it was for use on his own farm, the Court decided that Filburn had violated the law, ruling that  through the Act, Congress had the power to create quotas which “…not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.”  (my italics) The Court considered such sweeping authority to regulate a “…‘necessary and proper’ implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.”
 
Over the years, Congress has claimed almost unlimited authority to create and defend legislation under its Commerce Clause powers by manufacturing increasingly fanciful connections between congressional action and commerce among the several states.

In 1995 for example, the government claimed before the Supreme Court that authority supporting the federal law against possession of a gun within 1000’ of a school was derived from the Commerce Clause, arguing that school violence would impact negatively on insurance rates and limit travel to an area considered unsafe, both having an effect on commerce!  On this occasion at least,  the Court did not buy into the governments strained assertions.

One way or another, you WILL like blammocare

[obumazombie]

Stare decisis and the imagined right to privacy gave us unfettered abortion. With the right (or left) stacking of the Supreme Court anything goes.