Breaking News

Moderation update

We have been very pleased with the level of respect and intelligence that comments have reflected in the Community during this first week. We also want to thank those of you who are not lawyers or specialists for your valuable input and questions.  Specific expertise is by no means a prerequisite for participation; students are especially encouraged to comment.

To continue these early successes in the Community, we’d like to reiterate that we are not going to moderate comments with the intention of steering the discussions in a particular direction. When comments have not been published, it has been because they lack either substance or explanation for the opinion stated, are off topic, or are overtly ad hominem.  In the interest of transparency, the comments we have chosen not to include in the discussion threads are listed below.

We would also like to reiterate the importance of registering with your full name. If you do not use your full name, we won’t publish your comments. Thus far, only five people have not had comments published for this reason. Those who have changed their display name to include their full name have subsequently had their comments published.  As a reminder, Tom’s Guide to Participation outlines our goals for the Community and the terms of use.

Next week’s topics will be: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC,; the Stolen Valor Act, and whether the Court is pro-business.


Comments we have disapproved:


“Shut up,” she explained.


The purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to give power to the Congress to remove State BURDENS on interstate commerce by declaratory laws, such as — No State shall impose a tax or fee on property passing through such State and going to another State.

I.E. commerce produced in State A (or in a foreign nation) passing through State B (with any of its BURDENS – taxes, fees, regulations, etc.) and going to State C for consumption — whether or not State B likes such commerce passing through State B.
Since the American Indian tribes are internally *foreign* and foreign nations are externally *foreign* the commerce with them is totally subject to the Congress — i.e. basically yes or no.

See the Federalist, 1787-1788 — Left page number from The Federalist edited by Jacob E. Cooke (1961) — (Number-Paragraph)

39 7-5 The competitions of commerce *
40 7-6 The opportunities which some States *
71 11-12 An unrestrained intercourse
72 11-13 It may perhaps be *
135 22-1 IN ADDITION to the defects *
135 22-2 The want of a power to regulate commerce
136 22-3 Several States have endeavored *
137 22-4 The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States *
283 42-11 The defect of power *
284 42-12 The necessity of a superintending authority *
314 45-11 If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. *

[emphasis added] — REPEAT ***no apprehensions are entertained***

Heaven help SCOTUS — against the terrible so-called legal research it has been given since 1789.


These commerce clause comments are generally interesting to a commoner like Curtis Neeley. Nothing in these clauses are relevant to Curtis Neeley’s mission in life. Curtis Neeley’s case should result in the FCC regulation of wire communications, – whether called the Internet or simply more accurately called wire communications. USC 47 §153 ¶(52) is a better definition of wire communications called the Internet than anywhere else in USC 47 despite use of the common nickname.

I have alleged the FCC as malfeasant and United States search engines besides IAC/InterActiveCorp ( as exploiting visual art against the artist’s wishes. I also call USC 17 unconstitutional since passed in 1790 and aching for revision.

Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558) Is a fully briefed Eighth Circuit appeal that will be ignored by the United States Courts because of being pro se and IFP.

Curtis Neeley will, of course, seek an en banc review and this will not be granted in order to keep pornography flowing via unregulated wire locations(“URLs”).


Ditto, Ilya. That is why we love you!


See Federalist 33 and 44 about the NPC and Supremacy Clause.

Both add about ZERO to the limited legislative powers of the Congress.

How many folks on this blog have EVER read the 1787-1788 Federalist ???

U.S.A. Habeas Corpus
Art. I, Sec. 9 = being held/under arrest in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S.A. — by either U.S.A. officers or State officers.

NO dreamed up restrictions on the GREAT WRIT of Habeas Corpus by the Congress (to be *tough on crime*) are constitutional.

See the book – Sources of Our Liberties, edited by Richard L. Perry (1959) — before SCOTUS went N-U-T-S in the 1960s.

See Book I, Chap 1 of Blackstone’s Commentaries — just in time for 1775-1776 in the Brit colonies — in the writing of the 1776 era State Bills of Rights – many having a H.C. section.


In reply to Erwin Chemerinsky.

The Court should uphold the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Fifty million Americans lack health care and there is a huge cost to this in terms of needless deaths and unnecessary suffering. Those without insurance impose an enormous economic cost on the system.

Ah contriar – the 50m uninsured americans is cited as a major reason for the mandate – to stop the freeloaders who are cost shifting their freeloading to the insured. The uninsured fall into three primary groups, those that cant afford insurance – whereby obama care subsidized that group, those that are young and dont need expensive policies, the healthy and therefore not a burden, Those that self insure and for the most part pay for all their healthcare. Only a very small group are the actual free loaders that would not be subsidized.
The real reason for the mandate is to stop the mass exodus from the insurance market. since there is guaranteed coverage when someone becomes sick and premium pricing as if the person was healthy, there is no longer a reason to carry health insurance. Very similar to buying home owners insurance after the fire started.

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, Moderation update, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 7, 2011, 11:33 AM),