Constitutional Deception

From the Dictionary Reference.com:

If congress had enacted a single payer system instead, then you could make the argument that it's socialism.  Forcing people into the arms of the health insurance industry under the legal threat of financial penalties is fascism.

I see where the House passed a contempt citation for AG Holder.  If contempt of congress is a crime, then I guess I'm a criminal.

Dr. G

I hope for your sake that the paper price doesn't suddenly skyrocket, or that if it continues to fall, that you are able to get your silver back.

I firmly believe that a time of severe silver shortage is coming upon us.  The only remedy will be much Much MUCH higher prices.  As in silver more expensive than platinum for twenty years.  Wouldn't be surprised to see it ten times gold at some point, even if only for a few hours.

The commerce clause in the constitution, as written, provides the fed govt with the power to regulate interstate commerce.  That clause has been interpreted by various Supreme Court decisions over the years.

Originally, the constitution was given great deference, and the Supreme Court did not allow congress to interfere, that is, regulate, private commerce.  It was basically hands off to congress to slap regulations on private business.

That all basically changed following FDR's election at the start of the Great Depression.  FDR and his complicit congress wanted to enact all sorts of new laws, but the Supreme Court struck them down time after time as being unconstitutional.  The Court's rationale was that congress did not have the authority under the constitution to regulate NON-interstate commerce, and because many of FDR's laws did attempt to do just that, the laws were stricken.  

FDR countered with his court-packing plan, which was basically FDR's attempt to appoint many new "friendly" justices to the Supreme Court, bringing the number beyond the original 9, and thus giving FDR a majority.  The plan was for the new Supreme Court to then uphold the new congressional laws radically regulating private commerce.

Along the way, the justices on the court relented, seeing the writing on the wall, and upheld a piece of FDR legislation.  The cynical reason commentators later wrote about was that the sitting justices voted to keep the court institution alive, rather than see it killed by FDR's court-packing plan.  So, the court upheld the FDR era "New Deal" legislation under the commerce clause.  

The commerce clause reach was further extended from the Darby "bootstrap."  The court allowed congress to regulate strictly private, individual acts involving no commerce at all, when it reasoned that a private individual, growing wheat in his own backyard, for his own use, would nonetheless "affect" interstate commerce, thus allowing congress to regulate that individual's behavior, and prohibit the individual from growing his own wheat.

From then on, congress could do whatever it wanted under the guise that the activity sought to be regulated "affected" interstate commerce, and thus, was a proper subject for congress to regulate.

That is why, when Pelosi and the rest of them, including Obummer, when questioned about the Obummercare, never ONCE considered the unconstitutionality of it.  Congress had basically carte blanche to regulate whatever they wanted, including health care, which obviously affects interstate commerce.

This supreme court got it right, and said that congress cannot compel an individual to engage in commerce.

This court got it right under the constitution too, on the taxing power.  Congress can tax what it wants.  The theory is that if congress taxes too much, then the voters can get new legislators who can fix it.  It is NOT the job of the supreme court to decide policy issues, like taxes.  

They got it right on the constitutional issues.

They of course COULD have struck down the whole scheme based on the commerce clause, but it looks like Roberts felt like the congress could enact a penalty upon someone, in essence a tax, for not having health care insurance.  In short, taxes are raised to pay for government expenses.   If the government, the legislators, that is, decide in their wisdom to pay for everyone's health care, then the government can levy taxes upon the people accordingly.  

The bitching and moaning about this needs to be directed to the legislative branch, by voting, not by punting the difficult decisions to the supreme court.

I hope I have helped you understand this a little better.

Hrunner, fourth, any neighbor of America doesn't have to worry about an invasion because we pay for that security of the entire continent.  Saves a lot of moolah for social services and some very cheap seats to thumb noses at true capitalism.

A complete free market for health care is fine, and is my preference.

A complete socialist medicine system is ok, though I would vote against it as I think it would increase cost and decrease quality.

Forcing wealth distribution from literally every citizen TO A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is what I have a problem with.  If you are going to tax everyone, just socialize it.  But why should I pay a tax to Aetna?  At least if I pay a tax to a government healthcare system, I'm essentially an owner of that healthcare system.  

I've had a very bad day, mostly because I let the depressing things about our world get to me.  Politically we're in the shitter.  Financially, I play the market a bit, and I went from up 2% to down 1.5% in the space of 20 market manipulated minutes.  Macroeconomically we're in the water trap of the shitter.  Yet the sun is shining, my garden is growing, my family is healthy, I have a good job, and my Padres are challenging for the division.  Well, one of those last items is false, see if you can figure it out...

I might add, that if you agree with everything I write about PM's, then you should visit my therapist with me sometime . . .

Why are you selling now and why were you buying at $45 or more last year ?  The bullishness was frenzied then - surely a man of your experience must know to only buy when the bulls are squealing, and only to sell when the bulls are rampaging ?

You probably have more experience than me, but even so I believe you have this totally backwards. 

i have bought about 95% of my silver stack over todays price (as high as 42, most around 30).  i consider it a premium that i am more than willing to pay so that i can hold a physical asset.  i also have a large benjamin stack that i keep stashed as well.  i value one of the stacks more than the other.  the benjamins are there so i don't get tempted or forced to sell my silver (and to buy more silver and a pinch of gold here and there).  i hope it all works out in the end.  it may not though.

Don't know if anyone else has posted this yet, but this touch on the channel floor line couldn't be any more perfect.  Fucking computer is fixed now, but if it was working during day I would have made a trade off this, for some reason I was thinking it was 26.03, I may think about going long if we get some strong price action tomorrow and I see good entry on smaller charts.  I'm officially calling my second bottom prediction, I think my first one was in the 30 area.

http://www.screencast.com/users/RandyTabit/folders/Silver/media/725c9e9c-9daa-4a86-95d1-340fad179f98

You rock Girl! You are so dead on, I luv yer style.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthy-swiss-hoard-cash-see-180037221.html

The waivers ..... in all fairness   http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/111-obamacare-waivers-and-counting-can-the-rest-of-us-get-waivers-from-having-to-comply-with-obamacare-please           I almost forgot too!

Why are you selling now and why were you buying at $45 or more last year ?  The bullishness was frenzied then - surely a man of your experience must know to only buy when the bulls are squealing, and only to sell when the bulls are rampaging ?

​I'm selling because I'm bored. That's it. It's probably stupid, but it is what it is. My goal is to buy more at a lower price. I sold today to a LCS and got $28.50 for Maples and $29 for ASEs.

I bought at $45+ because I always buy. There hasn't been a week that has gone by since I've been stacking where I haven't bought. Before I had a job I was buying 2 oz at a time. Sometimes if I felt rich I would buy 5 oz. It's been a long process.

I largely ignore the price when it comes to buying (I only look at prices to compare and get the best deal from vendors). Buying at $45 itself doesn't hurt me as much as being utterly bored hurts me.

This is just a personal experiment, nothing more. 85% of my stack still remains. I'm not advocating that anybody sell. I haven't thrown in the towel. I'm long gold & silver.