3 ms·

To be honest, the language doesn't really matter. The US government can already do all of the things in the bill under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

by poet 16y ago

To be honest, the language doesn't really matter. The US government can already do all of the things in the bill under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Note how the Commerce Clause is used as the justification for requiring that citizens purchase healthcare [1]. It's has been used to justify laws related to sex offenders registries [2]. We ultimately are going to have to rely on the courts to develop precedents that limit the power of the government in this area. Between the debate over cyber security and the debate over healthcare, the Commerce Clause may well prove to be the most significant part of the Constitution for the next decade. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/health/policy/10lawyer.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/health/policy/10lawyer.htm... [2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1301 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1301

binarybits 16y ago
Um, the Commerce Clause didn't unilaterally impose ObamaCare on the country. It simply (arguably) authorized Congress to pass legislation regulating health care. What we're arguing about is whether Congress should exercise its power under the Commerce Clause to give the executive branch more power over the Internet. The language of the statute determines how much, and what kinds, of power the executive branch would get.
- poet 16y ago
  Um, the Commerce Clause didn't unilaterally impose ObamaCare on the country. What? I never claimed that it did. It simply (arguably) authorized Congress to pass legislation regulating health care. Yes, key word arguably. What we're arguing about is whether Congress should exercise its power under the Commerce Clause to give the executive branch more power over the Internet. The language of the statute determines how much, and what kinds, of power the executive branch would get. You missed the point of my post and I apologize for expressing myself poorly. The act of passing legislation is irrelevant to whether the executive branch will exercise the powers in question. Even if we pass legislation with an explicit enumeration of powers, the executive branch will still step outside those enumerations and use the Commerce Clause as the legal basis. My point is that the only thing which will actually limit the powers the executive branch takes is legal precedence, which we don't have right now. We wont see true limits on what the executive branch can do until we see some Supreme Court rulings in this area.

by poet 16y ago

binarybits 16y ago

Um, the Commerce Clause didn't unilaterally impose ObamaCare on the country. It simply (arguably) authorized Congress to pass legislation regulating health care. What we're arguing about is whether Congress should exercise its power under the Commerce Clause to give the executive branch more power over the Internet. The language of the statute determines how much, and what kinds, of power the executive branch would get.

poet 16y ago
Um, the Commerce Clause didn't unilaterally impose ObamaCare on the country. What? I never claimed that it did. It simply (arguably) authorized Congress to pass legislation regulating health care. Yes, key word arguably. What we're arguing about is whether Congress should exercise its power under the Commerce Clause to give the executive branch more power over the Internet. The language of the statute determines how much, and what kinds, of power the executive branch would get. You missed the point of my post and I apologize for expressing myself poorly. The act of passing legislation is irrelevant to whether the executive branch will exercise the powers in question. Even if we pass legislation with an explicit enumeration of powers, the executive branch will still step outside those enumerations and use the Commerce Clause as the legal basis. My point is that the only thing which will actually limit the powers the executive branch takes is legal precedence, which we don't have right now. We wont see true limits on what the executive branch can do until we see some Supreme Court rulings in this area.