Fox News: Is the health insurance mandate constitutional? Rivkin weighs in
Top Comments
All Comments (10)
-
Wow, apparently Rivkin forgets that Morrison and Lopez don't overrule Wickard. The court could have explicitly overruled Morrison/Lopez and he's also forgetting that in the Lopez era of the commerce clause it has to be related to "economic activity."
-
@robinhood2be The general welfare refers to how the enumerated powers should be used. It doesn't give the government the power to do anything they think is in the general welfare of people, learn the law would you.
-
DOUCHE BAG GO TO ARTICLE 1 OF CONSTITUTION IN GOVT PROVIDING FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.
-
@TheSilverPhoenix100 because you dont have to buy a house or car.
-
ummm they do realize most states require you to carry home owners and car insurance why are conservatives not crying foul about this
-
wickard v. filburn.
-
The importance of this issue has always made me wonder why the media is so averse to reporting on health insurance mandates, when the mandates compose the largest majority of "reform" in the proposed legislation. The claim that the ICC gives dems the power to require insurance, purely for the sake of a corporate handout, is as easy to refute as saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
I actually hope the bills pass, so people rediscover the power of civil disobedience.
cherminsky is right... Wikard v filburn
lawyer4817 1 year ago 3
@TheSilverPhoenix100 Because the states are not bound by the constitution. Look at what article one starts with, it's plain English. "THE CONGRESS shall have the power..."
Visfen 1 year ago