Posted on 03/24/2012 9:43:14 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
On Monday oral arguments will begin for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a case which will demand arguably the most important ruling the Supreme Court will make in a century.
And the Court’s decision on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate will indeed be that important, for a finding that it is Constitutional and may therefore be implemented would provide the federal government unlimited, dictatorial power over the lives and actions of the American people.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found the individual mandate unconstitutional, ruling quite correctly that the Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause powers of Congress upon which Obama’s handlers had depended for the authority to force certain Americans to purchase unwanted healthcare did NOT provide such authority after all. (1)
And as the argument made by the 11th Circuit in its 305 page decision was brilliant and almost certain to influence the thinking of the 5 members of the Court who still believe the United States Constitution rather than the Little Red Book to represent the law of the land, Obama’s Department of Justice lawyers were forced to invent a new method for allocating Congress the power necessary to impose the mandate.
The non-existent “penumbras” magically created by the Burger Court to justify Roe v Wade were not likely to work this time.
So DOJ attorneys have decided to apply the “necessary and proper” clause which provides congress the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers of congress,” such as the power to regulate commerce! (2)
The DOJ took this tack because in 2005, Justices Scalia and Kennedy sided with the Court’s Marxist left in deciding the...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I wondered why he was at the last Party at the White Hut.....with all the Celebrity/Hollywood/Donor usual Guests?
Holder and DOJ are in state of delusion and denial.
I wondered why he was at the last Party at the White Hut.....with all the Celebrity/Hollywood/Donor usual Guests?
That’s not a good sign.
If scalia did rule in favor of ObamaCare - it would destroy his entire legacy forever.
It’s called rope-a-dope.
My God.
She WROTE Obamacare.
There is NO DISPUTING this fact.
Justice Thurgood Marshall recused himself from a Supreme Court decision regarding a meat company because he said "I like their ham."
Why, in the name of all that is decent, is this woman being allowed to rule on this decision?
If scalia did rule in favor of ObamaCare - it would destroy his entire legacy forever.
I’m confident he will do the right thing. But it’s all scary.
No, the ruling will just solidify Scalia’s belief that the Commerce Clause is originally intended to control all aspects of “commerce” by the Federal government over the individual’s rights.
Elena KegFace!!
Regulating commerce is not in dispute.
OBAMACARE COMPELS COMMERCE BY FORCE!
And what about the hundreds of years of basic contract law to where an individual must have what is known as consent and mutual assent to enter into a contract?
The entire premise behind the mandate is absurd!
Read up on Scalia’s past decisions when the commerce clause became part of the issue. For kicks, study Scalia’s work before he was appointed to be a SC Justice. In short, Scalia is a radical when it comes to the expansion of the commerce clause, yes, even when the individual is compelled.
Just saying his “vote” is not entirely with the Unconstitutional crowd, although it MIGHT be. We will see.
Thanks for posting that disgusting picture of toe sucker Dickie Morris in drag!
I'm sorry, SkyPilot, but decency was a long time ago. Indecency has prevailed.
In full seriousness: the only thing government consistently does well is look after the interests of government.
In full seriousness: the only thing government consistently does well is look after the interests of government.
Well said. Sickening, isn’t it.
I understand that - but granting the govt this power literally is the end of this nation as the government will be able to force you literally to purchase anything at any price for whatever stupid reason it comes up with with no recourse!!!!
“So DOJ attorneys have decided to apply the “necessary and proper” clause which provides congress the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers of congress,” such as the power to regulate commerce!”
If no commerce was engaged in by Americans there is no necessary and proper clause application. Furthermore...congress does not have the enumerated power to compel us to purchase anything.
I worry most about Justice Kennedy .
The Obamacare Challenge: The Questions Before the Supreme Court and Their Portents for CongressBy Robert Alt and Edmund Haislmaier
March 22, 2012
(excerpt)
The Justice Department’s attempt to use this error to arrogate unto Congress the constitutional authority to enact the law—i.e., arguing that the mandate is somehow “necessary and proper” to avoid the negative effects that might otherwise flow from the operation of the community-rating and guaranteed-issue requirements—is constitutional hubris on stilts. The Necessary and Proper Clause, when utilized in conjunction with the Commerce Clause, permits laws carrying into execution Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. It does not give Congress license to blunder boldly so that it can lay claim to greater authority to “fix” the problem it created. And to satisfy the Necessary and Proper Clause, even where the law is legitimately carrying into execution Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce (which the PPACA does not), the law must still be proper—that is, constistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The PPACA, which admits to no limiting principle and which is inconsistent with any reasonable conception of limited and enumerated powers, clearly fails this test.
Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.
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.