Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Should the federal government be allowed to regulate your thoughts?
District Court Judge Gladys Kessler recently ruled that mental activity was no different than physical activity. And since physical activity could be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause, they they could similarly regulate mental activity.
Does this make any sense to you? Are there any other writings or decisions to back this up? Where does this concept come from?
One of the first of many links from a google search:
7 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
LP, they already try to. let me illustrate-
Hate Crimes, what does that mean. Crime is up front- you murdered a gay person on a college campus or you lynched a black person down south. This is pretty explanatory, you committed a crime and you should do the time.
Hate- people Feel hate so it is an emotion or thought. The government wants to prove you had bad thoughts when you committed this crime so they can punish you even more!
Sounds to me as though they are trying to regulate how we think.
Then there is the entire Politically Correct spectrum, talk about regulating what we think!!!!!!
This mess is really only attributeable to the Liberals among us, but it is so unacceptable that we must try to remove it from our discourse, Oh God I am being one of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They are grasping at straws over the pending set aside of Obamacare. I am sure Obama will just say he doesn't agree with any law and make everyone do what he thinks is right. Liberals know better than the peasants and must protect them from the predatory capitalists.
Old Guy
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Sure, it makes sense, if you accept the validity of laws against faux child porn that contains no actual children, or laws against hallucinogens. The Republican Party generally does. I do not.
If the case makes it there, this is going to pose a challenge to an otherwise reliably right-wing SCOTUS. Scalia sides with Marion "Pat" Robertson, Roberts sides with the corporate overlords. What happens when two right-wing ideals come into conflict? Who wins?
My money is on the rich. The rich always have abortions on demand. The rich always win.
