IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement, alt.prisons   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.   
   Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give   
   Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:ma16m0$9il$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>> On 1/24/2015 5:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>   Josh Rosenbluth  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 1/23/2015 12:25 AM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>>>    Josh Rosenbluth  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Commercial property is not residential property. They are   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The Constitution makes no such distinction.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Not always. For example, the government has more leeway in   
   >>>>>>>>>>> regulating commercial speech than non-commercial speech.   
      
   They are regulating commerce under the commerce clause....  NOT speech.   
      
   The government is saying that sales is commerce and when you pay for   
   advertising you are conducting business.   
      
   They don't regulate that same speech by the owner or the people in the   
   store shopping when it is closed and no commerce is taking place and no   
   one is talking/engaging in selling.  Where there is a lack of commerce   
   they never did regulate speech.   
      
   That means when there is NO commerce the government also can't regulate   
   race or gender or any other aspects of people that are NOT your customer   
   actually buying anything.   
      
   That destroys the 1964 civil rights based laws that regulate who is able   
   to shop or join a golf resort or any other aspect of NON commerce of   
   people NOT invited to do business(that's non commerce)and that would   
   include people NOT invited to work for you that are no longer protected   
   by quotas set by the government under the commerce clause.....   
      
      
    In short the government can't order you to allow people into your store   
   or business to shop or work and then regulate their gender or race   
   because it's now suddenly commerce.  The government had no power to   
   order you by law to allow anyone entry to begin with.   
      
   *The ObamaCare ruling changed/upheld the commerce laws* so that NOW no   
   law under commerce can regulate lack of commerce or NON commerce.  That   
   ended the governments mistaken ability to regulate anyone NOT invited by   
   you to actually engage in commerce. Fair housing act for instance? Or   
   the Community Reinvestment Act?   
      
   It was always true but no one challenged it until ObamaCare. Now with   
   ObamaCare and Judge Roberts decision...   
      
      
   -Justice Roberts-   
   [""""""Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate   
   individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new   
   and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already   
   possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the   
   Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the   
   same *license to regulate what people do not do* . The Framers knew the   
   difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress   
   the power to regulate commerce, *not to compel it* . Ignoring that   
   distinction would undermine the principle that *the* *Federal*   
   *Government* *is a government of limited and enumerated powers* . The   
   individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to   
   “regulate Commerce.”"""""""]   
    -Justice Roberts-   
      
      
   The ObamaCare ruling says that the government can't force you to enter   
   into commerce, which means you can't be force to engage in commerce with   
   anyone no matter their race or gender or whether they are gay or not and   
   so you need not hire them or allow them into your business since the   
   government has no teeth in any law that supported such interference into   
   your private sector business.   
      
   On the other hand the government is still required to treat all people   
   equally under the laws.  So it doesn't change that government is forced   
   to allow all people to enter government operated institutions and   
   services.  It makes our nation more dynamic and will create greater   
   opportunity without so much government intrusion.   
      
   The Democrats should have tried to get ObamaCare and that ruling tossed   
   out while they could, in order to save their favorite power of   
   regulating NOTHING because under the commerce clause that's what   
   Democrats did.  Now Democrats gained a tax but LOST the power to   
   regulate what people didn't do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)