Posted on 06/14/2011 12:15:34 PM PDT by american_steve
When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.
Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, government lawyers have yet to address the law's most basic constitutional infirmity. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to interstate commerce or some other federal legislative authority—can support the law's centerpiece, the "individual mandate" that all Americans purchase health insurance. The Constitution denies that power to the federal government, reserving it to the states alone.
In enacting the individual mandate, Congress purported to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce and, in the process, reach individuals who are already engaged in that commerce. But the individual mandate does not regulate commerce, interstate or otherwise. It simply decrees that all Americans, unless specially exempted, must have a congressionally prescribed level of health-insurance coverage regardless of any economic activity in which they may be engaged. Requiring individuals to act simply because they exist is the defining aspect of the general police power that Congress lacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
.......................It would make them look like a joke.
...................
With lesbos like Kagan and Sotomeyer, the SCOTUS is already a joke.
I listened to the closing arguments at the 11th district appeals court.
If they dont find Obamacare unconstitutional and put an immediate stay on that “law”, then this country is deep in a rat’s ass.
The attorney arguing in favor of the “law” got his ass handed to him and the entirity of his argument could be summed up as “the ends justify the means”.
Sorry, but that is not a Constitutional amendment, nor a Constitutional argument.
Don’t be so sure. Remember McCain-Feingold? The court is 4-4 with squishy Anthony Kennedy in the middle and he will turn either way, depending on which way the wind blows.
Even if SCOTUS plans to reverse O-Care, they will never pull the rug out from under Saint Barack before the election. They will wait until post-Election Day to drop the hammer. But if they UPHOLD the law, they might give him the gift of an early decision.
They live and work in a Democrat company town. They feel the same social pressures that the congressional pubbies feel.
I heard that they may find parts of the law unconstitutional (such as mandatory purchase of insurance).
If parts are unconstitutional, does that mean the whole law is thrown out? Or do the rats get to cherry pick and keep parts of it?
It seemed to me that the ‘prosecution’ made it clear that the individual mandate was inseperable from the rest of the ‘law’. It seemed to me that the judges accepted that as a given and perhaps was even conceeded by the defense attorney. The prosecution made excellent arguments that the entirety of the law was all interdependant on the individual mandate and was written as such.
I feel pretty good about Justice Kennedy. Several months ago, I read an opinion he wrote for the Lopez case referenced in the article. I don’t remember the particulars of that case, but it had to do with the federal gov’t using the commerce clause to usurp the power of the states. Kennedy voted to find the federal law unconstitutional. In his opinion, he clearly articulated that his decision was based on several things including the Framers’ contemporaneous writings at the time the commerce clause was debated, the historical reason that the commerce clause was included in the constitution, the principal of separation of powers, and the concerted effort of the Supreme Court over the last couple decades to reign in the commerce clause. It was clear from his writing that the Justices felt some early court rulings left too much power in the hands of the federal gov’t.
Interstate/intrastate has always been the Commerce and Senate dirty little secret since the 20 or 30s. This is how they rule.
I predict a 5-4 ruling to at least throw out the individual manadate.
I also read somewhere that Kennedy said that there was no way he was resigning until Obama left office.
I heard that too. I can only think of one way to interpret that statement. He’s scared sh!tless of what would become of the country if Obama had control of the Supreme Court.
ObamaCare is losing because it is a massively unconstitutional imposition on free people. The individual mandate is not severable, meaning that if it loses, then the whole law goes into the dust bin of history, where Obama and his entire evil legacy belong.
“If parts are unconstitutional, does that mean the whole law is thrown out? Or do the rats get to cherry pick and keep parts of it?”
The Florida court ruled that the whole thing was unconstitutional because parts of it were unconstitutional and Congress had failed to include their standard “severability” clause.
I’ve also read 1.) that it was an oversight that Congress failed to put in the severability clause because they were in such a rush, and 2.) Congress omitted the severability clause on purpose as the Rats thought that might intimidate the courts from declaring ANY of it unconstitutional.
We slipped into tyranny with that vote. That rat Congress was expected to, and did, rubber stamp the will of Dear Leader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.