My opinion of the commerce clause is irrelevant; although of course I agree with the majority of those who believe, going back to the inception of our country, that it's a two-way street, a view that's been used most often by the courts in interpreting the Clause. That being, the Clause by its own existence strips states of the authority to regulate some ways, but allows them to retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in other ways.
Of course, that would require one to think beyond the black/white box and embrace the gray. You have a problem with that, don't you?
In what way does it stiip the authority of the states to regulate? I don't really see a contradiction, although it's irrelevant to the issue I was concerned about, which is: What are the limits of the commerce clause, since health reform is stretching it to include non commerce and non activity. Doing nothing apparently is considered interstate commerce now. And of course, the ability of the federal government to force by law purchase of a private product is another issue that you would think that liberals would oppose. For all of your bleating about those big, bad insurance companies, this plays right into their hands. The government is ordering you to buy their products.
Any limit on that kind of power?
