3 ms·

This violates the freedom to contract (I should be free to use a hospital that doesn't have these security features) and is totally outside of the federal gover

• sokoloff 2y ago
  I am also frustrated by the dramatic increase in scope of the federal government versus the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution, but even given that background, I think this very likely falls within the power to regulate interstate commerce.
  • ETH_start 2y ago
    The interstate commerce clause was essentially a requirement on states to allow free trade across their borders with other states. "Regulate" had a different meaning in 18th century English than it does today.
    • sokoloff 2y ago
      After Gonzales v Raich*, I don't think the interstate commerce clause has any practical limits. * - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/
• dcrazy 2y ago
  Consumer protection is a well established power of the federal government. “Freedom to contract” is a kooky libertarian theory not grounded in reality.
  • ETH_start 2y ago
    The federal government suppressing contract liberty in the name of consumer safety has no constitutional basis. It's only established because the constitution has been routinely ignored since the FDR administration undermined SCOTUS's independence in the 1930s. And freedom to contract is a critical component of freedom of association. If you think living in a free society with your contract liberty intact is "kooky", you reject the foundation of a free society.