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.
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...
I personally hope the SCOTUS shreds the hell out of ObamaCare.....if not, I hope individual states will consider passing nullification legislation.
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”.
Money, Gifts, etc...
Too easily traceable. He might have gotten away with the bribes for Congress, but the Supreme’s?
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.
We’re getting kinda close to the .308 amendment, doncha think?
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.
What was Judge Napolitano’s view of this case?
Does he think that this could be overturned by the Supreme Court?
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.
Good to hear.
“Even if this Act is struck down, dont forget that the individual pieces can be enacted through separate legislation. “
Yes, but November is only 8 months away. . .
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.
Justice Thomas is not going to recuse himself.
He thought so but of by a 5 to 4 ruling.
The Congress can not force us to do anything.
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
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...
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 programs 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.