Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How will this work? Court challenges to Obamacare (V)
Vanity | 03-18-2010 | Tuxedo

Posted on 03/18/2010 5:33:01 PM PDT by Tuxedo

So, assuming the Senate Bill gets passed under the following scenarios - what is the likelihood of intervention?

Yeas/Nays - bill passes. I would suppose the first challenge would be the Constitutionality of requiring Citizens to purchase a service violates the Commerce Clause (see Seminole Tribe v. Florida) as the Federal Government cannot supercede sovereignty of the States. Further, there can be challenges filed by various State Attorneys General on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. Given this, I would presume that a Federal Judge (preferably a Strict-Constructionalist) can stay the Law. This would then get appealed and certainly make its way to the USSC. Can that be delayed until November?

Should the Slaughterhouse Rule be used to deem the bill passed, we already know The Landmark Legal Foundation will file suit that the law violates Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution. I presume a stay would be granted and the matter making its way to the USSC.

Given knowledge of precedence and case law, what do you think would be the outcome?

Should the matter not be settled favorably, a takeover of the House (Senate won't matter as much) can result in Republicans denying funding for Obamacare and adding its repeal into every bill passed. I realize that part of the Bill says it cannot be repealed, but to me that is just semantics.


TOPICS: History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: obamacare; ussc
Let me know how you see this playing out.
1 posted on 03/18/2010 5:33:02 PM PDT by Tuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo
In my opinion...any effort to throw the “health care” bill out based on the unconstitutional “deem” process should also include bringing up the congressmen up for charges of treason. I'm serious...not hyperbole
2 posted on 03/18/2010 5:37:36 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

agree totally. I wonder if there is anything the State governments can do. They willfully violated their oaths. Can they be arrested as soon as they return to their states? Or do they maintain Congressional Immunity...


3 posted on 03/18/2010 5:39:39 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

The SC judges are right now trying to figure out how to dodge the confrontation and allow Ozero his tyranny.


4 posted on 03/18/2010 5:44:09 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo
A QUESTION FOR YOU: If the courts start deciding, in various states, that the provision requiring people to buy insurance is unconstitutional, how will that affect Obamacare as a whole? Isn't that a core assumption of the whole bill?
5 posted on 03/18/2010 5:44:48 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Perhaps the “cannot be repealed” part has to be repealed first?


6 posted on 03/18/2010 5:45:25 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

They can do what they always do i.e. rule “narrowly” and strike down a sub clause while leaving the substance and the socialism intact.


7 posted on 03/18/2010 5:46:43 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Any State Court ruling can get kicked up to the USSC. See Bush v. Gore. That’s where this battle gets won or lost.


8 posted on 03/18/2010 5:47:42 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I think you hit the nail on the head. They might take out the internment camps and leave the rest. LOL


9 posted on 03/18/2010 5:49:36 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Simply not funding any salaries of the makeup of the death panel essentially moots the point about is being repealable. However - I looked through the Constitution and didn’t see much that would suggest a law can be written that cannot be repealed. Or vice-versa. So we’d have to look into precedents.


10 posted on 03/18/2010 5:49:55 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

No elected federal official will ever be charged with treason. Senators and Congressmen all would fear that it could be one day used against them if they let it happen for any reason. A president is not going to allow his Justice Department to so charge anyone who is on the president’s side.


11 posted on 03/18/2010 5:50:02 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Nice summary.


12 posted on 03/18/2010 5:51:17 PM PDT by craigster_nc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


13 posted on 03/18/2010 5:51:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://themagicnegro.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo
Wow, just saw, that spell checker portion of the site really butchered my post, lol.

I don't know if states have recourse to arrest criminal congressman.

Some states have a recall process, but given that many are up for election in Nov, it would be faster and easier to remove those through the ballot box. As for those who aren't up for reelection...those states need to pursue recall.

14 posted on 03/18/2010 5:51:41 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

If the “deem”-ing process is ruled unconstitutional, then the whole law is overturned. That could take quite awhile to happen and we’d be well into election season. But I agree that if it passes on Yeas/Nays then it is more likely to stand - and then we’d see states file 10th Amendment claims. The fabric of the nation will be tested for sure.


15 posted on 03/18/2010 5:52:36 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
No elected federal official will ever be charged with treason. Senators and Congressmen all would fear that it could be one day used against them if they let it happen for any reason. A president is not going to allow his Justice Department to so charge anyone who is on the president’s side.

Well, the problem is, if there isn't a workable civil solution congress and the senate is then leaving the only remaining solution a civil war. I most certainly hope they will allow for justice short of something so extreme.

16 posted on 03/18/2010 5:53:23 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW
......process should also include bringing up the congressmen up for charges of treason. I'm serious...not hyperbole

I'm with you. Of course, being on Atilla's right flank, I think hanging is too good for them, but seriously.......

either expand Ft Leavenworth to accomodate them for a 30 year sentence OR lifetime exile after forfeiting all assets to the state they were supposed to be representing at the time of their treason.

Nam Vet

17 posted on 03/18/2010 5:53:56 PM PDT by Nam Vet (Inuendo IS NOT an Italian suppository.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

“The SC judges are right now trying to figure out how to dodge the confrontation and allow Ozero his tyranny.”

I don’t know, I think Obama picked on the wrong group of people in his State of the Union campaign speech.


18 posted on 03/18/2010 5:54:16 PM PDT by Persevero ("Our culture is far better than a retarded Islamic culture." -Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

The more states that jump on the nullification band wagon the more power it puts in the states hands. We have three as of now..or nearly three. If another four or five get on board it will be very hard for the SCOTUS to ignor.

GET YOUR STATE TO VOTE FOR NULLIFICATION.

Ok, then what happens? The feds will try to force those states back in line.

Question. Of you who are vets on here. Do you think that those in the military would fire upon citizens of the US?


19 posted on 03/18/2010 5:54:27 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nam Vet
either expand Ft Leavenworth to accommodate them for a 30 year sentence OR lifetime exile after forfeiting all assets to the state they were supposed to be representing at the time of their treason. Nam Vet

I'd agree to exile...preferably to the liberal's nation of choice between Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or Iran.

20 posted on 03/18/2010 5:57:32 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

Well said. This is indeed scary. I hear the talk-radio hosts whipping us up (and it is working - I get so pissed off driving listening to Quinn and Rose, Rush, Levin, and Mike Church that I can’t stand it). A few Governors (Rick Perry et al) have also been posturing. Just think we all seemed so united right after 9/11. I pray we don’t have to experience another such event to wake this country up again.


21 posted on 03/18/2010 5:57:34 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: crz

I wouldn’t think Nullification would constitute and act of war or hostility. Just an assertion of the language in the 10th Amendment is all... The number of hard-core lefties in the country that would even support a military action of this nature would be less than 10%, I’d say.


22 posted on 03/18/2010 6:00:34 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Well, I know. But, until a USSC ruling, which could take some time, the requirement would not be there in the (many?) states which decided so. Would not that be problematic for the whole bill?


23 posted on 03/18/2010 6:02:39 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Yes, I think that would basically unravel the whole bill, plus each state’s action would have to be taken up separately. Could take a long time.


24 posted on 03/18/2010 6:09:09 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Three possible constitutional challenges:

1. All bills that raise revenue - even one penny [no ifs, ors, buts, except fors, etc.] MUST originate in the HOUSE. This bill produces revenue to the government and originated in the Senate.

2. Every Bill shall have passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens extended this to mean passing the same bill WITH the EXACT SAME text. The “Slaughter Rule” adds language.

3. In ALL cases, the votes shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. The House doesn’t want to do this ...

United States Constitution:
Article I:
Section 7: Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

” ... All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill ...”


25 posted on 03/18/2010 6:12:59 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo
Your alternatives are correct as far as they go. But the first challenge is to throw out the entire law on the grounds that it was not constitutionally passed. See the second link, below.

Congressman Billybob

Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"

""When Congress Cheats on Its Rules'"

26 posted on 03/18/2010 6:15:07 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

Civil War may be the best outcome left available.


27 posted on 03/18/2010 6:22:47 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

I would like to think the 10th is still in there, but the courts and the 17th have neutered the States. The Republic is long gone.


28 posted on 03/18/2010 6:22:56 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I forgot about the first line in Article 1 Section 7. Not sure how the USSC will react on that. Looks cut and dry.


29 posted on 03/18/2010 6:23:07 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Mark has been speaking about this tonight. He also said:

TO TRANSFORM THIS NATION, YOU NEED TO HAVE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNED!

We know this but show me one person in DC who knows it. Let’s make that into a bumper sticker.....


30 posted on 03/18/2010 6:23:53 PM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Anything Congress passes Congress can repeal, no matter what its wording.


31 posted on 03/18/2010 6:24:12 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Correct as usual. Looks like the Yeas/Nays won’t be there and they intend to actually shred the Constitution on live TV.


32 posted on 03/18/2010 6:24:30 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Republicans will not vote to deny salaries to bureaucrats and apparatchiks who have already been hired by the many thousands.


33 posted on 03/18/2010 6:25:06 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo
I would suppose the first challenge would be the Constitutionality of requiring Citizens to purchase a service violates the Commerce Clause

There is existing precedence from a 1950's case (that I cannot recall the name of right) now where the US Supreme Court held that a citizen may not be compelled by the government to enter into a private contract (e.g. enter into a contract with a Health Insurance company). That jibes with the commercial code as I understand it (IANAL) and the Supremes are really big on Stare Decisis so I'll wager that requirement gets tossed pretty quickly.

However, my big fear is that they understand this and have planned for it and will then use that as an excuse to set up single payer government system that we can be forced to deal with.

34 posted on 03/18/2010 6:29:42 PM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

And therein lies the rub - do we trust the Republicans to do what is right - or are they just trying to get reelected and increase their power base? Did they learn their lessons from 2006 and 2008? I see that the people retaking the government by force may be the only real recourse in the long run.


35 posted on 03/18/2010 6:31:26 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
However, my big fear is that they understand this and have planned for it and will then use that as an excuse to set up single payer government system that we can be forced to deal with.

Yes, we must not lose sight of their Endgame.

36 posted on 03/18/2010 6:33:36 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Cannot be repealed part is unconstitutional. It would be equivalent to amending the Constitution and stripping the law-making powers of the Congress.


37 posted on 03/18/2010 6:41:16 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

Good point


38 posted on 03/18/2010 6:43:18 PM PDT by Tuxedo (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Thank You Rush

Thanks TYR.


39 posted on 03/18/2010 6:52:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://themagicnegro.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Placing trust in:
1. President
2. Congress
3. Courts and/or
4. State politicians

makes as much sense as swimming in horse manure. In both cases, you covered with s#!t.


40 posted on 03/18/2010 6:54:51 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

I see the following happening:

- Lawsuits on the grounds that have been discussed (states/people rights). This will lead to an appeal court to put out a stay agreement and keep the law form being implemented. This is a short term victory; you never know what the supremes are going to eventually do.

- Republican politicians will not vote to fund it. Despite what zero says, there are costs to this and it must be passed in the house and senate. The senate will filibuster any bill that contains financing of it. And when we win the house, they can not orginate the bill. Another short term victory.

Here is what I hope to see:

- The states can get together and create a constitutional amendment saying that the feds can’t nationalize healthcare. Don’t know the wording, but along those lines. Since a normal amendment takes 75% of both the house and senate before it can go to the states, the states would need to create a constitutional convention to create the amendment and circumvent congress. This is my hope, otherwise, every 10 years or so, we will have this debate.


41 posted on 03/18/2010 7:01:12 PM PDT by Huskerscott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson