Little-Acorn
06-28-2012, 01:38 PM
The four dissenting Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy) mentioned that this ruling even goes beyond the limits of a classic case from 1942. In that 1942 case, the govt had set quantities that farmers could grow, of crops such as wheat... if the wheat was involved in interstate commerce. The government used to hang everything on "interstate commerce" in those days.
That 1942 case concerned a farmer who grew his own wheat, solely for his own consumption on his own farm. H didn't sell any of it to anyone in another state or even his next-door neighbors in his own state. He didn't even give it away. The farmer had argued that there was no way they could say his wheat was involved in "interstate commerce", and so he said could not be regulated under that law.
The government disagreed. They said that, since he was consuming wheat he grew himself, that meant he was FAILING to buy the wheat from others.
Growing his own wheat, was affecting commerce by eliminating part of that commerce.
Today's four dissenting Justices pointed out that today's decision said that even FAILING to grow his own wheat, would still give the government an excuse to regulate him.
Today they cited the 1942 wheat case, and wrote:
To go beyond that, and to say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activity at all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can be federally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393
So, there is still a question that has never been answered, by any of the people pushing Obamacare and its mandate:
If the Federal govt can force us to buy a private product from a private industry, by penalizing us for not doing it, are there any limits to what they can force us to do?
With the bizarre upholding of Obamacare today, that question is more important than ever. And it still hasn't been answered.
That 1942 case concerned a farmer who grew his own wheat, solely for his own consumption on his own farm. H didn't sell any of it to anyone in another state or even his next-door neighbors in his own state. He didn't even give it away. The farmer had argued that there was no way they could say his wheat was involved in "interstate commerce", and so he said could not be regulated under that law.
The government disagreed. They said that, since he was consuming wheat he grew himself, that meant he was FAILING to buy the wheat from others.
Growing his own wheat, was affecting commerce by eliminating part of that commerce.
Today's four dissenting Justices pointed out that today's decision said that even FAILING to grow his own wheat, would still give the government an excuse to regulate him.
Today they cited the 1942 wheat case, and wrote:
To go beyond that, and to say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activity at all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can be federally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393
So, there is still a question that has never been answered, by any of the people pushing Obamacare and its mandate:
If the Federal govt can force us to buy a private product from a private industry, by penalizing us for not doing it, are there any limits to what they can force us to do?
With the bizarre upholding of Obamacare today, that question is more important than ever. And it still hasn't been answered.