Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
One of the more troubling components of the ObamaCare bill wending its way through the House is the inclusion of individual mandates to carry health insurance. What gives Congress the power to dictate that choice to American citizens? A single document enumerates Congressional power, and former Department of Justice attorneys David Rivkin and Lee Casey have some trouble finding that power in it. They argue, with appropriate citations of precedent, that HR3200 and any other bill that attempts to impose mandates will violate the Constitution:
Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.
The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.
The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.
Well, double-hmmm. And to think it’s a constitutional law professor pushing it. How’d this get past Him?
Update: Speaking of abiding by the Constitution, Rick brings us video of some worthy commentary from an informed and somewhat righteously blazing leatherneck, who swore an oath to defend that document and sees to it that he is good for that oath. Not to be missed:
Courteous and respectful to everyone, friendly to no one. And what an appropriate place for it. Why don’t you head on over to his YouTube home page and thank him for his service to our country. Twice.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, this guy is well too organized and informed to be a real protester. He’s probably a shill for the insurance industry. I bet he smells like soap, too.
“Stay away from my kids.” Right on.
- Jason | 08/23/2009 @ 01:34This sort of confrontation illustrates to me the problem we’re having with our individual Congress-critters right now. Instead of being representatives of the people TO the state…they are representatives of the state TO the people.
For those who fail to see the distinction, I’ll give you two contrasting scenarios at a Townhall meeting:
Of the people, to the state:
Constituent: Congress needs to do this, and this, and this. And I want this other bill stopped.
Congressman: Uh-huh. (scribbles on notepad)…I’ll bring that up at the next session and make sure that the House leadership is clear on that.
Of the state, to the people:
Constituent: Congress needs do to do this and…
Congressman: Stop right there. You don’t understand what it’s like in Washington these days. We’ve been heard about this from you people already, and the House leadership is having some problems that you aren’t aware of. The common people aren’t in possession of all the facts here.
Do you see the difference? The former example does a lot more listening and a whole less talking. That’s how it’s supposed to be. These politicians are supposed to be hearing our concerns, then returning to Washington and voting the way we want them to…not substituting their personal judgment, then coming back to their districts and telling US “how it is.”
- cylarz | 08/23/2009 @ 21:56Spot on.
You sure you’re not in California?
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2009 @ 05:50You sure you’re not in California?
I live a stone’s throw from you, Morgan, down in Sacramento. I could ride my bike to Folsom Lake if I wanted to. Guess you forgot.
I wish I knew what your favorite watering hole was, if you have one. I’d love to drop by sometime when I knew you would be there, just to sit with you, have a drink and listen to you talk.
- cylarz | 08/24/2009 @ 23:37Guess you forgot.
You’re right, I did forget. Thought you said something about being in the southern states somewhere.
…and listen to you talk.
It’s really not that much fun. So far, an audience I can command by talking, is an audience that one way or another has a paycheck waiting for them when they listen to me talking; it’s not something they really want to do. Think how much fun it is listening to our current President, take the negative of that number, and that’s how much fun it is to listen to me. He and I are opposites in a lot of ways and that’s one of ’em.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2009 @ 06:53