Judge rules Govt can Regulate Mental Activity- Where is this going?

beardo

Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+1]Federal Judge Rules Congress Can Regulate "Mental Activity" Under Commerce Clause[/SIZE]
The American Spectator ^ | February 22, 2011 | Philip Klein
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:10:37 AM by ConjunctionJunction
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler's ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Politics are consuming the judicial branch. What happened to checks and balances?
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
lol.

a judge sides with democrats and it's them trying to 'regulate mental activity'.

oh beardo....

lol
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
lol.

a judge sides with democrats and it's them trying to 'regulate mental activity'.

oh beardo....

lol
That's what the judge said- They can regulate mental activity- It was a quote and those are interesting words he used. I don't like the idea of mental activity being regulated. And I also don't like the idea of having to buy anything, what if I cant afford it or don't want it, I don't want to go to jail or have to do community service because I don't have insurance. What if they say I have to buy a car? I don't even have a drivers licence and I can't afford car insurance let alone a car and gas. I don't want to have to buy anything and my mental activity shouldn't be up to anyone to judge as long as I'm not bothering anyone who's buisness is it if I know things or if I am privy to insight and knowledge beyond what people deem normal.
 
Don't you guys get the lefties know what America deserves and they are going to make damn sure the county gets it. Even if they have to use the governments gun to make you do it. Today they make you buy health insurance tomorrow it's brown shirts and government motors cars.



Oh and they started targeting mental activity with hate crime legislation.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Politics are consuming the judicial branch. What happened to checks and balances?
the most recent federal court to uphold the PPACA as constitutional was very interesting because a very conservative judge ruled in favor of the law.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/court_issues_first_ruling_on_h.html

Judge Jeffrey Sutton is a George W. Bush appointee and a former law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He served as an officer in the conservative Federalist Society’s Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group, and was one of the nation’s leading crusaders for expanding the role of the states at the federal government’s expense. Prior to becoming a judge, Sutton devoted much of his career to preventing people with disabilities, religious minorities, and even children who are illegally deprived of Medicaid coverage from holding states accountable in federal court — even successfully arguing major states’ rights cases in the Supreme Court.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Oh and they started targeting mental activity with hate crime legislation.
actually, we did not start that.

ya see, mental activity has been 'targeted' for centuries now by every lawyer who argues a case. it is called "intent" and "motive".

perhaps you have heard of these things?
 

Dirty Harry

Well-Known Member
...Oh and they started targeting mental activity with hate crime legislation.
Then I am fucked as I hate EVERYONE equally. Why don't you sit with that minority group? GUILTY! Why do you tend to stay to yourself and not be around lots of people? GUILTY! Why didn't you vote for the correct person? GUILTY!
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
I was thinking about going to Burger King to have a double bacon cheeseburger. I was thinking of keeping my old five-gallon flush toilet. I was thinking about buying a couple of cases of incandcent light bulbs. I was thinking about buying my buddy's Mini-14. I was thinking .... Uh, is that Michelle Obama at the door?
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
It's going to be like you get in trouble for shit that hasn't even happened just for thoughts and maybe you will have your dna scanned for a criminal gene or obeasity gene for your free healthcare.
 
Top