Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.
|
The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over. Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.
My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...
If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.
-spence
Threaded Mode