nikoloslvy1041Well Roberts was asinine as well on the commerce clause. according to him the government cant regulate commerce in this case but can tax it.Whatever happened to “to tax something is to destroy?”
He let me pick unconstitutional. I could argue that there is no precedent for taxing something for inactivity but I wonder of its the strongest argument. The judges may ask me about Wickard v Filburn to which I would reply that if this were to apply then Wickurd could force Filburn grow wheat. There is no commerce here ie as if there was no wheat being grown.I wonder if this is the strongest argument since he said start with your strongest argument.
your correct in assuming that arguing principle would go nowhere. My opposition will not be arguing principle either. We will both try to find precedent and use court proceeder, constitutional interpretation ,etc, just like a real court.
I’m unaware what uncompensating takings is but I will look into it. I could argue due process but I would rather not use something the left has always used to grow federal power and, there is a ton of precedent of them doing that if I recall.
Thanks for the feedback.