In the wake of a federal judge ruling ObamaCare's individual mandate unconstitutional, the Obama administration is invoking failed New Deal-era legal challenges to Social Security as a historical parallel. But as I write in my column @ Human Events, the successful cases invalidating the National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act seem more germane. The federal government's powers aren't boundless; they are limited by the Constitution. And the idea that the government can punish an individual for economic inactivity, e.g., not purchasing health insurance, doesn't appear in that document.

The USG can tax you differently relative to a variety of status points, whether you're married, your age, how much you make, etc. Why can't they tax you based on whether you are insured? I suspect they probably could have, and the fact that this legislation didn't approach it that way (and instead took the unbelieveably heavy-handed approach it did), says a lot about how the Administration, and his party, view their power and authority.

And pretty soon, after this new fascist regime get their way, you won't be able to find out about it on the internet as it is with the the leftist controlled news industry.

We are experiencing the kind of soft fascism that always leads to people stopping other people on the streets for no reason whatsoever and demanding to see their papers.

"We are experiencing the kind of soft fascism that always leads to people stopping other people on the streets for no reason whatsoever and demanding to see their papers."

You mean like Arizona?

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."

Guess you missed the words, "reasonable suspicion".

Now I'll grant you that that term is fraught with vague terminology, but it doesn't amount to "soft fascism," or stopping people without cause.

So no, Arizona doesn't fit your argument.

Exactly NR. Nothing like the Arizona law which, by the way, is modeled after existing Federal law and follows the letter of what police are allowed to do everyday most everywhere in this country.

But as long as it would be Obama's storm troopers stopping people indiscrimately and unlawfully, lefty mowrons like FEP seem to not be concerned that bit by bit this current regime is chipping away at the rights and freedoms that they despise Americans for having.

Come on NR, you're a smart gut. You really believe the law to be followed all the time by all police? There is a disconnect. There has always been a disconnect between the enforcer and the law. I know a cop personally that does illegal things. I've had friends that have been beaten and left on the East Side before. I know you are not that naive to believe what you just wrote.

Tell me, what are grounds for "reasonable suspicion" anyway? Not speaking English? I have met citizens and residents before that don't, so that argument is invalid. Obviously skin color can't be. Having a national flag sticker on someone's car? I could have an Irish flag on mine, but I am 4th generation American and proud of my heritage. There is no basis for "reasonable suspicion"... only big brother suspicion.

asdf, what don't you get about this?!?!? I am NOT for this action that AZ is taking. And its not Obama's tropes doing this in AZ, it is radical right wing gun and militia nuts. I am anti-patriot act too. Anti-TSA at this point too.

Really, can you find one quote of me praising the work of Obama? Or have I simply been disillusioned with our government overall, putting highlights on a corporate run system as the demise of a real republic?

Sorry buddy, I'm not just simply a leftist. I would be somewhere around a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. As NR said before, most likely a Libertarian. Just look at the last article where I wrote about collusion between doctors-insurance corporations-and the feds (headed by Polosi/Obama). Stop your fanaticism, seriously.

And have you stopped contributions to Social Security and Medicaid? Do you plan on taking entitlements when you live longer than you should? I feel like Robert McNamara, but are YOU a socialist?

Well exactly Fexpat, I'm not naive, that's why I suggested that the term "reasonable suspicion" is too vague. However, my point was not that police are incapable of breaking the law, but rather that Arizona's law is NOT soft fascism.

I couldn't find the appropriate federal statute with regards to apprehension of illegal aliens, so I cheated and looked at the Arizona law on Wikipedia. Granted, it's Wikipedia, so if I'm mistaken, maybe someone posting here can clarify for me.

"U.S. federal law requires aliens 14 years old or older who are in the country for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times".

Does that mean that the federal government is engaging in soft fascism?

It's my understanding that the Arizona law mirrors the federal statute (again, if there is a significant difference, if someone could post it, that would be great).

As to police corruption, that also is NOT soft fascism. That's crime, plain and simple. I would imagine with so much focus on the Arizona law in the past months that there would be a multitude of ACLU lawyers (as an example) ready to jump in at the merest hint of racial profiling.

Really, your argument could be extended to myself. As a non-citizen, every time I have to cross the border, a friendly (mostly) border agent asks me for my license and proof of Canadian residency in the form of a passport. If I don't show it, I can be detained. The same goes for an American travelling through Canada.

Do you consider that soft fascism?

What's the first thing any police officer asks for when they stop you for a moving violation?

"License and registration (which has your address on it) please."

Oh, and your assertion that it's "radical right wing gun nuts" is invalid on its face. Or has the State government been infiltrated and I missed that report?

Look, asdf exagerates (I hope) when he talks about a "road" that your country is travelling down but your assertions about Arizona and soft fascism are equally as specious.

NR wrote,

"Look, asdf exagerates (I hope) when he talks about a "road" that your country is travelling down but your assertions about Arizona and soft fascism are equally as specious."

No they aren't.

FEP wrote,

I feel like Robert McNamara, but are YOU a socialist?

Yes, he absolutely is a selective socialist and lover of big government tyranny, when it suits his fancies. He loves the Patriot Act, has no problem with indefinite detentions and preemptive wars, sees no problem with no-bid contracts (ie big government welfare handouts) to paramilitary organizations like Blackwater, but despairing over the fact that this simple stimulus-response organism has an inconsistent set of political beliefs would be like despairing that the sun sets in the west or that grass is green.

I would gladly forego all supposed "benefits" due me under Medicare/Social Security if they would just "let" me opt out.

Pretty please, government? Let me stop paying into this fund for...um...myself supposedly. I promise not to ask you for anything. Really.