Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So THIS approach is really what you Libs. have wanted all along.
Thought so!
We all knew you guys were whacked and have NO compassion whatsoever.......and you just care about yourselves and enjoy forcing others to do what you want them to.....for YOU...... or you are fine with exterminating them.
You all TRY to come across as so sympathetic and compassionate.....when it's all just a LIE so your kind can come swoop in and become the parasites you really are.....after the dust has settled.
The elitist, SOB-way imposed upon all.....who you believe are beneath you.
Gotcha!
Yes, you're right, it's the libs that lack in compassion. LOL
Again, I'm familiar with the case and have no need to re-read it. He was selling wheat which affected the wheat market, albeit in minute quantities. The individual that was buying the wheat did not need to buy their wheat from the market. Its commerce.. Cash traded hands, its an exchange of goods, Filburn gave person B wheat, person B gave Filburn cash.. Thereby creating a transaction, which affected the market because it reduced the demand.
He was NOT giving it to his livestock Wickard v. Filburn – Case Brief Summary Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption
The courts held that because he was using it for local use, he was reducing the demand on the wheat market, thereby changing the demand of commerce.
Again, if I DONT HAVE insurance, I'm not giving ANYONE money, thereby NO COMMERCE is taking place. I am not changing the demand of insurance either..
You obvious don't know the case Filburn's entire argument centered around the fact that he was growing the excess wheat for his own personal use, which included feeding livestock. Here it is all you have to do is read the first paragraph that is under the heading "Facts of the case." To see that I am correct.
That hasn't mattered since Odgen v Gibbons. Which concerned a ferry monopoly in New York state. In that the court ruled that even though the monopoly only covered water ways in the jurisdiction of the State of New York it was still could be superseceded by federal law, under the interstate commerce clause, even though it was only within New York State, because it effected commerce elsewhere. As I said unless you are arguing that because it does not pass between states it does not effect health care commerce in other states it does not matter.
No, you are wrong again. That case involved interstate commerce between New York and New Jersey.
You obvious don't know the case Filburn's entire argument centered around the fact that he was growing the excess wheat for his own personal use, which included feeding livestock. Here it is all you have to do is read the first paragraph that is under the heading "Facts of the case." To see that I am correct.
Not true.. He was growing excess wheat which was sold, but not on the open market (i.e. the wheat exchange). I even posted you the quote from the argument which said so..
In addition you are ignoring the fact that Filburn was TAKING action. Not buying insurance is a FAILURE to take action.. They are OPPOSITES.. They arent even close..
No, you are wrong again. That case involved interstate commerce between New York and New Jersey.
The New York law specifically granted a monopoly for the water ways limited to the state of New York. The problem was that any ferry operator, not covered under the New York monopoly had obtain a NY permit when they entered the territorial waters of New York state. The court ruled that even though the monopoly was only in existence within the territory of New York it effected commerce between the states and was thus under federal jursidiction.
Not true.. He was growing excess wheat which was sold, but not on the open market (i.e. the wheat exchange). I even posted you the quote from the argument which said so..
In addition you are ignoring the fact that Filburn was TAKING action. Not buying insurance is a FAILURE to take action.. They are OPPOSITES.. They arent even close..
Gosh. Its question one in the summary you linked. This is the last time I am saying it because even though it is right there you are ignoring it.
"Can Congress regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce?"
As to taking action, where in the ruling does it say anything about "taking action?" It says congress has the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs. It does not qualify it with "taking action" or "not taking action."
That sounds good, but it wouldn't work, the insurance companies would just gravitate to the state with least regulations. That is what happened in the credit card industry.
Yup, race to the bottom. Everybody's next policy would be issued by Humana of Mississippi. Until Oklahoma decided it would be good for business if they had even lower insurance standards than Mississippi does. Gotta love these brilliant right-wing thinkers. They don't fall for a single corporate sham, these sharpies...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
