Tell me if I'm reading this right (like I could stop you).
From the Obamacare mandate ruling by Judge Gladys Kessler:
...As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power....However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality....Here's Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who got me thinking about what a big deal this ruling is:
...Our thoughts are now actions. There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.And which led to a quick search of the interwebs, leading to this fellow who obviously isn't thinking of turning the judge's ruling to his pecuniary advantage:
Our thoughts are now actions. Whoops, I already said that. I just can't get over it. The following sentence has now become a justification for regulating decision-making even where the decision is just to do nothing:
The Congress shall have power.... To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;I think I'm going to be ill. Which of course, is now subject to regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services....
Excuse me while I sit down and ponder all of that for a moment. Anytime you make a choice not to act you are “acting”. Therefore, the court has now decided, any decision to not to act (related to commerce) is an act and you can be therefore required to do what the government says you must do.
Or, more succinctly, you have no real choice regardless of what you decide, so sayeth the court.As I repeated in "JP Morgan Says Buy GM Calls Using the Proceeds from Your Sell Ford Calls (GM; F)":
If I decide not to buy a car, I’m acting, and if the government wanted to require me to buy a car, under this ruling, it could.
If You Absolutely Insist on Having Some General Motors, Look at the Convertible Preferred (GM; GM.Pr.B)
What's not to love about a GM convertible?
('61 Vette Roadster)