Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence Silberman begins his substantive analysis by quoting the text of the Commerce Clause: “Congress shall have Power … To regulate commerce … among the several states.” The legal issue in the case is whether the words “regulate commerce” extend to the regulation of economic inactivity—to force people to take the action of purchasing health insurance. Employing a classically originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, Judge Silberman does not consider what the words “regulate commerce” might mean today, but instead references Samuel Johnson’s 1773 dictionary to determine what those words meant to those who ratified the Constitution in 1789. Johnson defined “regulate” to mean “to prescribe certain measures,” or “to adjust by rule or method.” To “regulate,” Judge Silberman reasoned, “can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market.” Judge Silberman concludes: “There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument.” To a true conservative, and to most everyone else, a constitutional argument that has no “textual support” in the language of the Constitution is an argument that will lose almost every time.

This desecration of the intent of the Constitution (do you think for a second that the writers would have severely ham-strung the central govt…but then say: “but if it has anything to do with commerce, do whatever you want”???)
is probably the single most responsible factor in the reason we have the invasive, dictatorial, corrupt, ever-taxing behemoth we have today in WashDC.

TERRY: 1st, we are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Learn the difference. 2nd – Do you really think the people control the decisions of a Democracy? Have you been paying any attention the last 200 years? You write your congresscritter, you get a polite form letter back, and then they vote with whoever can fill their campaign coffers. That’s how it works 98% of the time. American Democracy is an extension of corporate rule. This is a law that puts moms and pops out of business, so that we will have to buy all our toys from China. They might feign indignation, but do you really think Mattel is against this?

JON: on the Constitutional point. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to “regulate international commerce.” In your estimation, does that include the power to made thrift stores throw out all of their children’s books and merchandise? Is that “International Commerce?” This law vastly oversteps the Commerce Clause, and is blatantly unconstitutional. But, noone cares anymore. Thousands of unconstitutional laws, dozens of unconstitutional wars… but you dare smear someone who speaks out against these just because you disagree with his stand on abortion. You’re as bad as a Christian Coalition types who has a “litmus test” for a pro-life stance.

Ron Paul voted heroically on this, voting with common sense and the Constitition and against the “save our children” demagoguery. Proving once again that he and Kucinich are the only two people in that house with a shred of integrity or independent thought.

I don’t know Ron Paul, but I am guessing that he was actually the only one who READ the law and the only one with enough balls to not vote for it. With some major changes, this is a needed law. Right now it is a nightmare.

I am kissing my business good-bye. And my suppliers are going to lose more than 80% of thier customers. They won’t be able to stay in business, either.

The man at least votes his conscience and not what the well paid lobbyists want. Amazing how many Americans have issue with that.