Skip to comments.Justice Breyer: Can Congress Make Americans Buy Computers, Cell Phones, Burials? ‘Yes, of Course’
Posted on 03/29/2012 2:59:08 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Justice Breyer: Can Congress Make Americans Buy Computers, Cell Phones, Burials? Yes, of Course By Terence P. Jeffrey March 28, 2012
(CNSNews.com) - During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacares mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?
Yes, of course they could, said Breyer.
In the history of the nation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never done this.
But Breyer, on Tuesday, stated his belief that the basic power of Congress to do such a thing was settled by the Supreme Court as early as 1819, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the court decided Congress had the power to create a Bank of the United States.
Breyer explained his point of view after becoming impatient with the convoluted answers Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had offered up in response to questions from Justices Sam Alito and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Is Breyer senile?
What does the Governemnt opening a bank have to do with forcing citizens to buy something? No one had to use the bank if they did not want to..
Having just read his so-called “explanation”, and despite the fact I am NOT a lawyer (thank God), I have to say that represents some of the most convoluted, twisted, tortured “logic” I’ve seen in a long, long time.
What an idiot.
Breyer ought to be forced to buy me a fleet of Cadillacs. I need them.
There’s a lot of anticipation that the Supremes will toss out Obamacare...The opening of Mark Levin’s show dedicated to the discussion of the courts proceedings warned that the Court could go the other way.
By the time the SCOTUS decision arrives the candidate question should be semi resolved.
With Romney at the helm and the PCs (pseudo-cons-servatives) in charge what will happen ?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution
KaganLezbo and Soda-my-ass jumped in to demonstrate what side of the Constitution they are using for their ruling - the blank side!
And make us buy (and eat) broccoli because itll make us healthy.
When is the decision supposed to be? Thanks.
Yes, of course. Setting aside the question whether a national bank was a wise idea, the question at issue was whether each of us would have to open a savings account at such a bank (or establish a similar account at another bank). Fact is, I don’t HAVE to open a bank account at all. I can stick my money in a mattress if I want to. Those choices are mine to make, not the government’s to impose. I of course have to face the consequences of my choices, but that’s a different issue.
Thank God for lawyers - Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are lawyers. So is Mark Levin, and I could go on.
Lawyers are like neighbors, teachers, soldiers and relatives - some are jerks and some are gems.
Lord knows, when the government comes after you, you will want a lawyer to help you.
If you like freedom, thank a lawyer and a vet.
You are right about Breyer’s “logic”. Sadly, he gets it from the McCullouch v. Maryland case. It is the “logic” in that case interpreting “necessary and proper” that has gotten us where we are in Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The proof of that is the Wickard case. If you can stomach it, even as a non-lawyer, please try to read those cases, at least the sections discussing “necessary and proper.” if you can read the dissents you’ll pretty much see where both sides are going.
I won’t be shocked either way, sadly.
The short answer to your first question is “Yes, like most Lefties, regardless of age”.
Only if you are willing to accept that.
No. Romneycare is an exercise of the state police power which is almost unlimited. The federal government, however, does not have a general police power and has to justify Obamacare under the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution.
Breyer is interesting, in that he highlights the differences between Clinton and Zero.
Breyer is a Stalinist, in many ways he’s the worst of the bunch. But he’s well-cloaked. Clinton (or, more likely, the Clintons) knew to pick him out of a crowd because he concealed well. Breyer would never be seen having dinner with Sibelius while hearing this case.
Look at the contrast with Kagan and the wise Latina. Zero has no ability to cover his tracks.
Hopefully, it will cost him.
I refuse to submit to Congress, but can't fight a revolution alone. We need a rallying point.
In the end, the Revolution was about free men deciding they were free men, and not submitting to those who said otherwise. Those same free men gave us the Constitution, which was supposed to keep us free from such thinking as Breyer’s.
Personally, I think we lost our freedom some time ago, and continue to, as we are simply submitting to the tyranny daily. It's been the slow boiling of a frog theory right before our eyes. I flew across country two weeks ago, and watched how we all smartly got in line to be violated by government agents in order to fly on an airplane. It was like watching herded cattle.
Obamacare will win. Breyer’s thinking is not an exception on the US Supreme Court. Congress can do as it pleases.
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.