The “Interstate Commerce” clause?

Is that the same Interstate Commerce clause that was used in Wickard v Filburn?

The one that said it was illegal for a farmer to grow wheat to feed his own chickens, because it affected the price of wheat, which is traded across state lines?

Welcome to the return of the Company Store. Uncle Sam’s General Store, where it’s now illegal to not buy things!

Forget about Bastiat’s “Broken Window.” Do you really want to live in a country where the State can order you to buy windows, on the grounds that windows are sold across state lines and therefore under the jurisdiction of bureaucrats?!?

(oh, and we’re going to have to tax you on those windows you just bought…)

Sally Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.

Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period.

By law, Harpold could get up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine. As written, the law makes no distinction about why you bought the medicine or your intent.

Just as with any law, the public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, the prosecutor said.

“I’m simply enforcing the law as it was written,” (prosecutor Nina) Alexander said.

Well, at least when the government is in charge of all health care, she won’t have a choice of family member for whom to purchase medicine.

The smaller and less-powerful a government is, the less likely it is to become a target for lobbying and influence-peddling.

Businesses and industries often use the power of the state to enforce limits on competition. Often these limiting factors come in the form of regulation or unnecessary licensing. And because the real intent of these regulations is protectionist in nature, it is easy to ignore thoughts of the unintended consequences.

Such as the case of a Michigan woman, who is openly flouting the law by watching the neighbor kids at the bus stop:

photo: Grand Rapids Press

Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.

The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors’ kids, or face the consequences.

One lawmaker is already trying to craft an exception, which comes a little late for Snyder, who claims she’s been ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and faces up to 90 days in jail. Nice move, but somewhat too-little-too-late.

Oh… and how exactly did these intrepid investigators strike fear into the heart of Snyder, the “illegal daycare kingpin?”

A neighbor filed a complaint.

Think about that for a moment. A law-abiding citizen turned in a neighbor over something that was technically illegal, but shouldn’t have been.

So how hard was it supposed to be for people to turn in “suspect” information about health-care proposals to whitehouse.gov? (where opinions could get you on a list sanctioned by the executive branch.)

I feel a chill.