Lawsuit

[Marokai Backbeat]

I certainly hope the court doesn't accept this case because, speaking as former-AG for a moment, it doesn't seem like terribly smart legal reasoning to base a case to repeal something on a clause of "giving power to ____."

Leaving aside the number of alternative rationales (such as building transportation, as given, to promote commerce, as given, to protect public health by making regulations to protect employment, as given, etc) it would seem like you're presenting this clause very broadly where, as you interpret, you could strip away any regulation or government program competing with identical private services, such as the post office, the health care program, funds to develop certain cars, etc.

Summary: Bad legal basis and overly broad interpretation. But we'll see what the court says, I suppose.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry that I had to read this thread and see that picture of Rachel Maddow.  Need to go find that thread with the picture of Carla Bruni again...

LOL

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vepres, you could quite easily make the argument that government intervention distorts the market and government intervention in a business or market inherently corrupts the freedom of the economy.

Of course, I still think using a clause giving the Senate the power to do something as justification for repealing anything that, in your opinion, doesn't do that, is rather flimsy.

I shouldn't really interfere though, there's no actual case and I'm not the AG.