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

Skip to comments.

Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
Newsmax ^ | MARCH 25, 2010 | David A. Patten

Posted on 03/26/2010 7:46:59 PM PDT by RobinMasters

President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 111th; bhohealthcare; commandeering; healthcare; judgenapolitano; napolitano; obama; obamacare; scotus; scotuss; statesrights; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2010 7:46:59 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead; justiceseeker93; traderrob6; OL Hickory; socialismisinsidious; trlambsr; Altera; ...

Ping


2 posted on 03/26/2010 7:47:10 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Dear Lord, may the Judge be correct in his assessment!


3 posted on 03/26/2010 7:47:59 PM PDT by TheStickman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

And despite all that it will still be a 5-4 decision.


4 posted on 03/26/2010 7:48:26 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin - For such a time as this...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Wouldn’t this be sweet. Especially after the way the justices were attacked by the Kenyan during his SOTU Show.


5 posted on 03/26/2010 7:48:49 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We've got an expanding, fat porker government demanding that WE get skinny! I don't get it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

BTTT


6 posted on 03/26/2010 7:49:19 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 2 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

For a minute there I was totally confused...thinking Janet Napolitano...!?!

The judge is correct. I just pray the Supreme court agrees.


7 posted on 03/26/2010 7:49:38 PM PDT by Lucky9teen (I'll just say the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is there for a reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

I can see Breyer joining in on this one. 6-3


8 posted on 03/26/2010 7:49:41 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

If they do this before the GOP takes back one of the houses of Congress, Obama and Pelosi and Reid will stack the Court.


9 posted on 03/26/2010 7:50:02 PM PDT by cmj328 (Got ruthless?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Or, Stevens retires...


10 posted on 03/26/2010 7:51:20 PM PDT by JDPendry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

**Wouldn’t this be sweet. Especially after the way the justices were attacked by the Kenyan during his SOTU Show.**

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Justices were looking for a little “payback”.


11 posted on 03/26/2010 7:51:32 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Obama's vision for America...Green shoots and skittles, where pancakes grow on fritter trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Impeach the punk. Vote out his ‘rat co-conspirators.


12 posted on 03/26/2010 7:51:58 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government,

One of the worst? Even FDR, on his best court-stacking day, wasn't in the same league as Obama.

13 posted on 03/26/2010 7:51:58 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Barack Obama: Government:: Bernie Madoff: Finance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
From Andrew's Lips to GOD’s Ears.
14 posted on 03/26/2010 7:52:02 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

If odorkocare is not unconstitutional, then nothing is and the feds have all the power they want. Finding odorkocare constitutional is the end of the Constitution. But then, that is what the fascists want.


15 posted on 03/26/2010 7:52:29 PM PDT by HerrBlucher ("When the national government and Congress start going wild, it's up the states to rein them in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Doesn’t have to be pretty just has to be in America’s favor...


16 posted on 03/26/2010 7:53:22 PM PDT by hstacey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
I expect 0bambi to communicate his wishes (menacingly, if not threateningly) to the court, and as a result, get a 9-0 decision that throws out 0bamacare out entirely.

HF

17 posted on 03/26/2010 7:53:33 PM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
I can see Breyer joining in on this one. 6-3

If they truly believed their oath of office, it would be 9-0. Even the Wise Latina and Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg should have to go along. Of course, they won't. But they should.

18 posted on 03/26/2010 7:54:17 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Barack Obama: Government:: Bernie Madoff: Finance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

2014..


19 posted on 03/26/2010 7:55:00 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

BTTT

FWIW


20 posted on 03/26/2010 7:55:07 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

While I sincerely believe that many of the provisions of “Obamacare” will be found to be Unconstitutional, ultimately,..., there is a high probability that the SCOTUS will reject challenges at this time since, the challenges are for PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES...


21 posted on 03/26/2010 7:55:16 PM PDT by ExSES (the "bottom-line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

The problem is that they will not declare the whole bill to be unconstitutional, just the individual mandate and maybe some of the regulations.


22 posted on 03/26/2010 7:55:50 PM PDT by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for, it matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Well, that 5 are who the shampotus dissed in the state of the union.


23 posted on 03/26/2010 7:56:06 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Scotus needs to fast-track this issue to the exclusion of all others.


24 posted on 03/26/2010 7:56:09 PM PDT by givemELL (Does Taiwan Meet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"? by Richar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSES

Ripeness is not an issue when further development of the facts wouldn’t shed any more light on the case.


25 posted on 03/26/2010 7:57:00 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I wish he were right, but it ain’t going to happen.


26 posted on 03/26/2010 7:57:10 PM PDT by cydcharisse (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Why Breyer? I was thinking Stevens.


27 posted on 03/26/2010 7:57:41 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheStickman

Amen to that one. If Jay Sekulow takes it to the Supremes, he’s got an excellent chance of winning.


28 posted on 03/26/2010 7:57:48 PM PDT by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cydcharisse

who peed in your wheaties?


29 posted on 03/26/2010 7:58:03 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MsLady

Jay’s a mite pompous, but he nails argument before the USSC as well as anybody who’s ever done it. The question is, when the USSC as inevitable orders the state cases to be consolidated, will enough states want Jay to speak for them?


30 posted on 03/26/2010 8:00:18 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Breyer voted with the majority (7-2) to uphold the 14th Amendment in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Stevens and Ginsberg dissented.


31 posted on 03/26/2010 8:01:01 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Napolitano can argue that this un-Constitutional until he is blue in the face, but I am sure he would say the same thing about a number of other cases that were uncomfortably close in the Supreme Court. Look at Keller vs DC (handgun ban), Ricci vs DeStefano (New Haven firefighters) and Citizens United vs FEC.

Fortunately in those cases Anthony Kennedy was a critical swing vote, but he proved that he is in favor of a loose definition of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales vs Raich (California State’s rights to medical marijuana).

Here is Clarence Thomas’ passionate dissent, with all do respect to Napolitano, he has no reason to say that Kennedy has shifted on this epic stance.

“Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.”
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.”

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

“If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”


32 posted on 03/26/2010 8:01:23 PM PDT by ATX 1985 (Time is Breath, Breath is Light, Light is Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

The conservatives on the SCOTUS still want to play by the rules when the Marxists are not. I hope they do, but all that will do is inflame the useful idiots.


33 posted on 03/26/2010 8:01:30 PM PDT by Clock King (There's no way to fix D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,”

Exactly the reason why each state has it’s own Constitution.
Each state is unique in it’s dispensation of resources.
One size of government cannot fit all states equally.

Health care will be struck down. Or else.


34 posted on 03/26/2010 8:01:34 PM PDT by o_zarkman44 (Obama is the ultimate LIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheStickman

Invoking the supreme being to intervene in the foibles of mankind is a fool’s play.


35 posted on 03/26/2010 8:01:46 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
The problem is that they will not declare the whole bill to be unconstitutional, just the individual mandate and maybe some of the regulations.

They are counting on it. The thing that will survive is the thing they care about the most - the taxes.

36 posted on 03/26/2010 8:03:11 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This is a no-brainer. The mandate is unconstitutional, along with many of it’s provisions. Barring private banks from issuing student loans is unconstitutional. Exemptions for certain states and not others is unconstitutional. Exempting certain religious groups from this plan is unconstitutional because it’s clearly discriminatory. The list goes on, add to the list, add-on-ers!


37 posted on 03/26/2010 8:04:43 PM PDT by historyrepeatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATX 1985

Economic-based regulation of the private production and use of a fungible product (same thing that happened in Wickard) is not quite the same as regulation of the simple existence of people, unless people are also considered fungible. On a similar rationale, the USSC rejected the idea that Uncle Sam can ban guns in school zones.


38 posted on 03/26/2010 8:04:58 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: givemELL
They should, but more likely, they will meet
ex parte and obey their King and Emperor, and perhaps
all go piss together on the grave of John Jay, like they
did when they last met ex parte with litigant cryptoKenyan Hussein.


39 posted on 03/26/2010 8:05:01 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Ping for later


40 posted on 03/26/2010 8:05:11 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I’m fairly sure Justice Kennedy will join the four conservatives.


41 posted on 03/26/2010 8:05:11 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

If Pubs have the House they can stranglehold the taxes.


42 posted on 03/26/2010 8:05:31 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I’m not an expert on constitutional law, but I sure hope the bill is ruled unconstitutional - especially the individual mandate aspect. Proponents call it a legitimate “tax.” I call it Federal power run amok. It’s one thing for my state government to, say, require me to carry car insurance as part of the privilege of owning and operating an automobile. It’s quite another for the Feds to tell me I have to buy health insurance simply because I am a citizen of the United States.


43 posted on 03/26/2010 8:05:40 PM PDT by DemforBush (Somebody wake me when sanity has returned to the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

The entire bill is predicated on the mandate. A struck down mandate is a struck down bill.


44 posted on 03/26/2010 8:06:06 PM PDT by historyrepeatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
And despite all that it will still be a 5-4 decision.

So true! What kind of Republic, what kind of law-abiding society can survive when nearly half of it's 'justices' think they can pick a turd up from the "clean side".

45 posted on 03/26/2010 8:06:13 PM PDT by budwiesest (It's that girl from Alaska, again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Won’t happen.

The Court will refuse to get involved.


46 posted on 03/26/2010 8:06:17 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

Let the useful idiots be inflamed. Let them be so inflamed they lose their reason and fall in their folly.


47 posted on 03/26/2010 8:07:44 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Estimated to cost Texas $24 BILLION in next 10 years.


48 posted on 03/26/2010 8:07:50 PM PDT by lonestar (Better Obama picks his nose than our pockets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hstacey

I have an honest question to Freepers here...If the suits filed against Obamacare make it to the SC, what happens to the healthcare industry in the meantime? Dont the suits need to advance thru the regular Federal Court System first? Can leftist Fed judges delay and slow the process intentionally? Couldnt this take a really long time to happen; and by the time the SC rules...the healthcare industry in this country is already destroyed?


49 posted on 03/26/2010 8:08:42 PM PDT by Mister Muggles (.Seattle: A city full of Liberal men with vaginas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oldbill

Only need 4 votes to grant cert and you can bet after having been dissed by Obama they will.


50 posted on 03/26/2010 8:08:59 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

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