Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court stuck down parts of New Deal
LSU Law Center ^ | 3/23/10 | LSU

Posted on 03/23/2010 9:05:24 PM PDT by Columbia

It can be done.

Repeal, replace, reload.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhohealthcare; fdr; healthcare; newdeal; ruling; scotus; socialism; struck; supremecourt

1 posted on 03/23/2010 9:05:25 PM PDT by Columbia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Columbia

This has been my arguement on this site for over a week.


2 posted on 03/23/2010 9:06:50 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

The SCOTUS is going to carve this turkey up too and may get rid of over 1/2 to 3/4 of it. Better yet they will probably scrap the whole thing and laugh at Obozo behind closed doors.


3 posted on 03/23/2010 9:08:35 PM PDT by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come. Judgment Day: Nov 2, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

That they did.


4 posted on 03/23/2010 9:08:58 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

Yeah as long Obama does not try to buy the Justices off too. Then we will be in good shape.


5 posted on 03/23/2010 9:09:36 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

What’s he going to buy them off with? They’re lifetime appts.


6 posted on 03/23/2010 9:11:42 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix; Columbia

The beauty of this is if SCOTUS invalidates any prat of it the whole thing goes down at least that’s what Judge Andrew Napolitano said.


7 posted on 03/23/2010 9:11:53 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

Killing parts will help but this thing needs to be gutted and defunded in Nov 2010 then sabotages, stripped, sued more and destroyed..


8 posted on 03/23/2010 9:12:56 PM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn

He will not buy them off he will threaten them. Paging Judge Carter in CA?


9 posted on 03/23/2010 9:13:58 PM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Columbia
Supreme Court strikes down New Deal legislation allowing president to regulate poultry industry under delegation doctrine - A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 55 S. Ct. 837, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

Ummmmm..., okaaaaayyy... :-)

Are the chickens gonna be in trouble here, with this legislation or what?

10 posted on 03/23/2010 9:14:13 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

The Supreme Court struck down the NRA - the National Recovery Administration. The Roosevelt administration took the various programs and either parcelled them out to various agencies or enacted them in the Wagner Act.

By 1936, most of the major features of the NRA were back in place, passed through additional legislation. Even if this Act is struck down, don’t forget that the individual pieces can be enacted through separate legislation. Strike down PPPCA in 2011, see it enacted through piecemeal legislation in 2114. Unless the House can be swung 112 seats.


11 posted on 03/23/2010 9:14:50 PM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbia
Thanks for posting this. I especially like paragraphs 38 and 39.

======================================
38] The argument that regulation of wages and hours may be sustained because of the necessity for uniformity in all the States, finds no support in the Constitution, and the conception of federal power upon which it rests has already been rejected by this Court.
McCulloch v. Maryland,4 Wheat. 316, 405; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 81-82.

[39] In the final analysis the contention made rests upon a non-existent power in the Federal Government to enact any act deemed by it necessary or desirable to promote the general welfare.

12 posted on 03/23/2010 9:16:07 PM PDT by freespirited (I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise. --Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

The House can swing 112 votes.

I’m betting 0bama won’t be criticizing the SCOTUS again anytime soon!


13 posted on 03/23/2010 9:16:58 PM PDT by Columbia ("The Gem of the Ocean, The home of the brave and the free, the shrine of each patriotÂ’s devotion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

13th Amendment.

Congress can’t “make” you buy something!

That’s servitude!!!


14 posted on 03/23/2010 9:17:34 PM PDT by djf (Health care? Guess what! If you have to PAY TO BE FREE, you're NOT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

Here’s what is going to happen....the bill will stay the same except they will remove the “punishment” aspect of not buying ObamaCare insurance.


15 posted on 03/23/2010 9:17:35 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
This thing needs to be gutted and defunded in Nov 2010 then sabotages, stripped, sued more and destroyed.

Don't stop with the legislation either.

The CPC (Congressional "Progressive" Caucus)membership must be exposed as the cadre of socialist crook sex pervert baby killing trial lawyer hugging unAmerican scumbags that they are.

Its absolutely ludicrous that these red sons of bitches are operating above ground and in our faces without fear of retribution.

16 posted on 03/23/2010 9:18:33 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

Thank you for posting this!


17 posted on 03/23/2010 9:19:29 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

Err, make that “2014”, not “2114”.


18 posted on 03/23/2010 9:19:39 PM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

You’ll have to ask Rev. Wright.


19 posted on 03/23/2010 9:23:12 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cranked

There are several constitutional issues that cannot be solved by removal of the mandate. Several parts of the legislation are constitutional defective. See, for example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610040924143158.html

However, there will never be cases of greater magnitude before the Supreme Court than these. When a government can order you to buy a product, it can compel you to do anything. The constitution has been stretched and strained during its existence, but this would demolish any thought of limitation or restriction on government. If this is not struck down, we will have lost the republic and any freedoms we thought we had.


20 posted on 03/23/2010 9:27:58 PM PDT by bone52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

If all these intrusive federal government shenanigans are somehow justified by the 16 words of the “Commerce Clause”, maybe it’s time for the state-rights advocates to start thinking about a Constitutional Amendment to bring the Commerce Clause into the 21st century.

Since the 10th amendment didn’t seem to do the job, maybe the 28th would...


21 posted on 03/23/2010 9:28:58 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

I personally hope the SCOTUS shreds the hell out of ObamaCare.....if not, I hope individual states will consider passing nullification legislation.


22 posted on 03/23/2010 9:30:39 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

Yes it can be done, and SCOTUS is where it SHOULD be done. We need the court to definitively say “you simply cannot wipe your ass with the Constitution”.


23 posted on 03/23/2010 9:33:25 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn

Money, Gifts, etc...


24 posted on 03/23/2010 9:37:09 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

Too easily traceable. He might have gotten away with the bribes for Congress, but the Supreme’s?


25 posted on 03/23/2010 9:43:37 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: djf

I don’t think Congress should pass any law to make you do anything. Laws can be passed to prevent you from doing things, such as committing murder or theft.


26 posted on 03/23/2010 9:44:15 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

We’re getting kinda close to the .308 amendment, doncha think?


27 posted on 03/23/2010 9:45:20 PM PDT by djf (Health care? Guess what! If you have to PAY TO BE FREE, you're NOT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Columbia
Hence the reason for the pre-emptive attack on Justice Thomas' wife and her Tea Party activism.

If this gets to SCOTUS, the MSM and Democrat Socialists will demanded that Just. Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a 'known activist' against the President.

If Just. Thomas recuses, the vote is probably 4-4 and the law stands. If he doesn't, the vote is probably 5-4 striking down the law.

This will make Bush vs. Gore look like a moot court practice session. Mark my words.

28 posted on 03/23/2010 9:48:00 PM PDT by TexasNative2000 (This seems like fairly decisive evidence that the dream can, in fact, die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

What was Judge Napolitano’s view of this case?
Does he think that this could be overturned by the Supreme Court?


29 posted on 03/23/2010 9:50:31 PM PDT by kaila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cranked

I am hoping and praying that the Supreme Court will step up to history and defend the constitution.

You may want to check out this thread as a possible way to opt out of the obamanation. I have no experience with any of these ministries, but it seems like an interesting idea.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478301/posts


30 posted on 03/23/2010 9:58:16 PM PDT by bone52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Columbia

Good to hear.


31 posted on 03/23/2010 10:02:46 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

“Even if this Act is struck down, don’t forget that the individual pieces can be enacted through separate legislation. “

Yes, but November is only 8 months away. . .


32 posted on 03/23/2010 10:03:44 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: murron

Well, we have to register for Selective Service, and/or the draft.

We have to pay taxes.

That’s a couple of legitimate things I can think of.

But to force to engage in one sort of commerce or another, of course, that is beyond preposterous.


33 posted on 03/23/2010 10:05:19 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TexasNative2000

Justice Thomas is not going to recuse himself.


34 posted on 03/23/2010 10:05:42 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kaila

He thought so but of by a 5 to 4 ruling.


35 posted on 03/23/2010 10:08:54 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

The Congress can not force us to do anything.


36 posted on 03/23/2010 10:24:00 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
If all these intrusive federal government shenanigans are somehow justified by the 16 words of the "Commerce Clause", maybe it's time for the state-rights advocates to start thinking about a Constitutional Amendment to bring the Commerce Clause into the 21st century.

Yes! How about:

"The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States shall be limited to negative and preventive measures against injustices among the States themselves, and not for any positive purpose of the Federal government."

__________________________________

That would put it in line with its original understanding:

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

James Madison, 13 Feb. 1829

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html

37 posted on 03/23/2010 10:47:04 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TexasNative2000

Don’t really seeing that happen...The judges wife is free to do what ever she desires....now if he were part of the tea parties that would be different...he cannot be made to recuse himself based on what his wife does...


38 posted on 03/23/2010 10:50:38 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Columbia
And the people struck this down:

Less than a year and a half after enacting the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-360), Congress was forced by a ground swell of negative public reaction to retract the legislation, the first major enhancement in Medicare benefits since the program’s inception in 1965. A retrenchment of this magnitude is unprecedented in postwar social welfare policy. The experience also appears to have soured Congress toward enacting further increases in Medicare benefits for elderly and disabled beneficiaries.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/9/3/75.pdf

39 posted on 03/24/2010 12:50:04 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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