Skip to comments.Supreme Court stuck down parts of New Deal
Posted on 03/23/2010 9:05:24 PM PDT by Columbia
It can be done.
Repeal, replace, reload.
This has been my arguement on this site for over a week.
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.
That they did.
Yeah as long Obama does not try to buy the Justices off too. Then we will be in good shape.
What’s he going to buy them off with? They’re lifetime appts.
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.
Killing parts will help but this thing needs to be gutted and defunded in Nov 2010 then sabotages, stripped, sued more and destroyed..
He will not buy them off he will threaten them. Paging Judge Carter in CA?
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?
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.
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.
 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.
The House can swing 112 votes.
I’m betting 0bama won’t be criticizing the SCOTUS again anytime soon!
Congress can’t “make” you buy something!
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.
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.
Thank you for posting this!
Err, make that “2014”, not “2114”.
You’ll have to ask Rev. Wright.
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:
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.