Thursday, February 24, 2011

Kessler's Ruling ObamaCare Constitutional Declares thoughts Actions

This is the important line from the ruling; "Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.". What possible limits are there to this logic; none. Not doing something, but merely being aware of the possibility that is would be possible to do, would legally qualify as an action. The government could control every aspect of your life. That is not the structure envisioned by our founders. I strongly doubt they could have conceived that the giving power to Congress "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" could be twisted to force people to buy 100lbs of carrots a month; since thinking about buying carrots would qualify as an action that could have an impact on interstate commerce.

"That seems to be the import of the ruling by federal Judge Gladys Kessler in upholding the Obamacare mandate in a suit brought by a group of private plaintiffs in Mead v. Holder (pg. 45, emphasis mine):

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power....However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. 
Our thoughts are now actions.  There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.

1 comment:

  1. When the supreme court gives monopolistic businesses like private health insurers and the chamber of commerce free reign to buy elections, you shouldn't be surprised if the laws that get passed have a strange way of being profitable for them.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow