House Votes 406 to 19 to Pass Insurance Antitrust Bill

[Carmen813]

That was a huge issue in the first few decades of the Supreme Court until the seminal decision of Mabury v. Madison. Well worth reading, and reading about, if you are at all interested in the rise of the Supreme Court.

Oh, I know all about Marbury v Madison. I was just stating that I believe the argument/implication that the government can only do things that explicitly stated in the Constitution is obviously false.

 

[Patranus]

Uh... did I say I support it. Go re-read my posts because you didn't the first time. Pointing out facts of the matter as they stand is one thing. I also stated I do NOT like the legislative branch abusing this power as they did with the Cannabis ruling for example to get what they wanted. Acknowledging the power and abilities of the legislative branch is a far cry from deeming what all the do as right.

The fact remains that Congress has this power. There is a reason they have this power and many times it has been proven businesses need to be regulated. Otherwise crap like Enron or worse happens. I'm not saying Congress can't foul things up worse, but they need to have the power to regulate when it is needed. There is a difference between recognizing the have the authority and advocating them when they abuse that authority on occasion.

Your assumption is that the state cannot do the job the federal government is currently (trying) to do in terms of regulating commerce within its own borders.

The simple fact of the matter is that the currently congress could enact laws to restrict alcohol (once requiring a constitutional amendment) through a simple law (as they do with Marijuana).

So Congress "has the power" now but didn't before FDR. What change in the physical document of the constitution granting these powers to congress?

(And don't tell me that Congress can do whatever it wants as the 10th Amendment clearly state that powers NOT granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people)

 

[ElFenix]

The simple fact of the matter is that the currently congress could enact laws to restrict alcohol (once requiring a constitutional amendment) through a simple law (as they do with Marijuana).

remember that MJ was originally outlawed via tax act, rather than direct regulation under interstate commerce? why? because growing some for yourself wasn't "interstate commerce" at the time.

it took an amendment to regulate alcohol because laws like one outlawing the manufacture of alcohol for sale across state lines were struck down.

 

[Patranus]

remember that MJ was originally outlawed via tax act, rather than direct regulation under interstate commerce? why? because growing some for yourself wasn't "interstate commerce" at the time.

it took an amendment to regulate alcohol because laws like one outlawing the manufacture of alcohol for sale across state lines were struck down.

I think you are proving my point that much of what the federal government does these days is bull shit was has come-about because of FDR and his shortsighted policies.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If you really need to ask, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.

hahaha...so true...as if we actually need to know anything about some unknown politician...rofl..hahahaaa