Posted on 07/06/2010 7:53:38 AM PDT by opentalk
(Congress shall have the power: ) "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" — Article 1, Section 8, United States Constitution
Take a good, long look at the above "commerce clause," my fellow Americans. As far as the American left is concerned, it is the vehicle by which tyranny can imposed on the citizenry of the United States. Too strong a contention? Not at all. Our Democratically- controlled Congress has made it clear that "commerce" is a term so flexible it can be "regulated" — even when it literally doesn't exist.
That is the essence of their contention with regard to the clause in the health care bill requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, or risk a fine or prosecution for refusing to do so. Make no mistake: Congress is telling Americans that we are required to engage in commerce, whether we like or not — simply because we exist. And the fundamental question Americans should be pondering as a result, is this: if Congress can force you to engage in a particular activity against your will, if they can literally eliminate the freedom to choose not to engage in commerce, what is it they can't regulate?
Answer: absolutely nothing — and that is the essence of tyranny.
...Any doubt whatsoever which side Elena Kagan would be on? Any doubt that the woman who once stated that "whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs" is anything other than a radical leftist?
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Why does this make her a leftist? This is the long standing constitutional position with regard to free speech. It is why you can't falsely shout fire in a crowed theater or committ defamation, libel or slander with impunity. As with every single constitutional right, there is a balancing test.
When you stick your hand in your pocket, wallet or purse you are beginning the "Commerce Action". According to those Idjets they have the duty and right to determine how much you have in your pocket, wallet or purse and what you must spend it on.
Healthcare, veggies, and appropriate materiels DEEMED!
Of course Politicians, Prostitues and Porn, (all the same birds of a feather and oily on the gulf), are appropriate commerce!
She was asked :”If a law was passed that told citizens what they had to eat everyday, would that be constitutional?”. She refused to say no, only that such a law is stupid but that alone is not a reason to rule it out!
Unfortunately, liberal logic is the furthest thing from balanced.
Clarence Thomas gets it.
When did she say this?
--Most troubling of all is that the line of reasoning running through Kagan's opposition to our case leads directly to the conclusion that the government has the authority to ban books and other forms of communication.
--Chief Justice John Roberts rightly noted that day, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."
--To argue that Citizens United v. FEC was about anything other than the right of American citizens to join together and exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to political speech is typical Washington double-speak. The remedy for speech that one does not agree with is more speech, not regulation.
--A nominee who believes that certain types of speech and certain speakers should be censored for no other reason than that speech affects a lawmaker's chances of reelection is not fit for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Kagan would wield enormous power over the constitutionally guaranteed right of every American to participate in the political process -- a right that she believes government can restrict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.