August 2, 2010
Riddle Me This, o Argumentative Abogados
(Or is that "Avocados?")
If the federal government can force me by law to purchase government-approved health insurance -- e.g., ObamaCare -- whether I want it or not... does that mean it can also force me by law to purchase cable-TV service from government-approved cable-TV operators, even if I would rather have DirecTV or Dish Network, or even (heaven forbid!) no TV at all?
If the power to command the first doesn't imply the power to command the second, then what is the legal distinction? Why couldn't Congress enact the Viewer Protection and Affordable Television Act of 2010 during its Lame Donkey session this year?
Non-lawyer minds really, really want to know.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, August 2, 2010, at the time of 4:54 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4527
Comments
The following hissed in response by: Diffus
Somewhat similarly, I have pondered this question: If the government can take money from me and give it to other people, does it also have the authority (I know it has the power) to take away my house, my car, my television ... my stuff, and give it to someone else?
The above hissed in response by: Diffus ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 2, 2010 9:05 PM
The following hissed in response by: GW
There is no reason the government could not enact that act - if the Supreme Court upholds the right of Congress to force the purchase of health insurance, either under the Commerce Clause or the taxing power. The Supreme Court caved to federal govt. under Roosevelt, allowing for the vast expansion of federal power under the Commerce clause. Having gotten so far away from the original purpose of that clause at the time of the drafting, there is, as it stands today, no bright line limiting the government's ability to force American citizens to purchase whatever as a prerequisite of citizenship. All that needs to be done is for Congress to put magic words in the preamble of the bill to establish that they see the bill as having some nexus with the commerce clause.
The above hissed in response by: GW at August 2, 2010 9:14 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
