Quote:
|
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
Here's a link to an interesting story about how a farmer in 1942 took his lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The farmer believed he had the right to grow as much wheat as he wanted on his farm even though the gov said there were limits on how much he could grow.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Co...14425.html?x=0 |
Apart, from wading into the merits or demerits of that decision, I would say off the top of my head that the fundamental difference is that the farmer was engaging in commerce, whereas with the health care deal, the government would be forcing people to engage. In other words, the "commerce clause" can apply to people engaging in commerce; but can it be used to force people to engage in it against our will? Interestingly, the government itself backed away from the purchase mandates of ObamaCare by claiming that the penalties are taxes and not really [punitive] penalties. So...if Obama himself and the administration's lawyers have begged off the "forced purchasing" shtick and instead have pursued a course of a taxation strategy, they must see a weakness or two in the commerce clause approach.
Having said all this, I think it will still be a huge uphill battle to get the SC to overturn ObamaCare. Way too much political capital is at stake here. (Recall Biden's remarks after it was passed?) I see about a 30% chance of getting this reversed. The court will likely let it stand or render some watered-down decision, declaring parts of the bill as being unlawful.
Boxcar
