The thread I was replying to started with the claim that this law couldn't stand because it would utterly destroy the economy.
The response was that "law doesn't work that way"
If it is true that this judge's ruling implies the destruction of the economy (which is a claim whose truth value I am not offering an opinion here), then it is the case that Congress' powers exist specifically for the purpose of making "law work that way" -- that is, changing the law when it is discovered that the law is destructive
The law would be destructive only to the half who foolishly lent money. To the half who foolishly took it, it would be tremendously constructive. 50/50. The law shouldn't favor just one side, by definition.
The response was that "law doesn't work that way"
If it is true that this judge's ruling implies the destruction of the economy (which is a claim whose truth value I am not offering an opinion here), then it is the case that Congress' powers exist specifically for the purpose of making "law work that way" -- that is, changing the law when it is discovered that the law is destructive