XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: ws21@cornel.edu   
      
   On 6/30/12 1:28 PM, Mason Barge wrote:   
   > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:13:05 -0400, Jim T.  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:25:17 -0400, Ubiquitous   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> By Ross Kaminsky   
   >>>   
   >>> Regarding mandating of healthy young people to buy insurance to mask the   
   >>> costs of the rest of Obamacare, the dissenters were not shy: "If   
   >>> Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an   
   >>> interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause   
   >>> becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton's words, 'the hideous   
   >>> monster whose devouring jaws… spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor   
   >>> low, nor sacred nor profane.'"   
   >>   
   >> Slippery slope arguments are unworthy of a high school debate team.   
   >> From Supreme Court justices they are downright embarrassing.   
   >   
   > I don't see why, if the argument stems from the granting of a previously   
   > reserved power.   
   >   
   > The difference is whether the "slippery slope" is deductive or inductive.   
   > When a new general principle is stated, it is perfectly logical or even   
   > wise to think about consequences that aren't currenly being considered.   
      
      
   Which is just what the insurance companies are thinking:, "If this goes   
   on, it will lead to a single-payer system and we'll be out of business."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)