Posted on 03/30/2010 9:54:28 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
The punditocracy has recently been consumed with a debate over whether or not the Republicans will be able to repeal the recently-passed health care bill. Outside of self-professed conservative pundits, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the odds are prohibitively against repeal (or significant modification).
This Politico article typifies the attitude of those who doubt that repeal can be effectuated. It argues that the current outrage over the health care bill is merely a part of a "familiar pattern since New Deal days: Government programs from Social Security to Medicare that were launched amid incendiary arguments within a short time became sacrosanct - protected by a bipartisan consensus that was nowhere to be found at passage."
This is certainly one possible outcome for the President's health care bill, but it isn't the only one. Here is why repeal is a real possibility.
1. This bill is substantively different than Social Security and Medicare.
My colleague Jay Cost made a critical point a few days ago:
Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made use of an ingenious social insurance system - promoting the idea that we all pay in today to take out tomorrow. It was consistent with American individualism. It was simple. It was intuitive. It was bipartisan. Obama's new system has none of those virtues. This feature is what makes repealing or substantially modifying Social Security and/or Medicare so difficult. They are entitlements that are broadly given to the middle class, who also pays for them. To the extent these programs are redistributive, that redistribution is largely hidden. Everyone, from the poorest member of society to Bill Gates, has some stake in Social Security and Medicare.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
There’s no way it will be repealed short of the SC doing it. I’ll be surprised if even that happens. It’s a done deal.
Maybe, maybe not.
The SC had better recognize that, if this hellcare bill is not repealed, the US, in time, will become just another Europe which has no need of a SC.
Considering our Senators quote Scottish law and some on the court look to International courts for insights on law in the US instead of the Constitution I wouldn’t be surprised if they uphold it. There will always be a SC, not just the one we know.
I am asuming you know Granholm doesn’t speak for Scalia.
It is a narrow view, a lawful view is a narrow view.
Her argument made no sense to me. She cited cases in which private citizens were engaged in some activity (growing dope or wheat). The issue here is private citizens engaged in no activity. She thinks Scalia will say the feds have a right to COMPEL them to enter into commercial activity (i.e. buy something from a private insurer.)
I thought she sounded like an airhead. Of course, she’s a former AG and I’m just a science nerd.
Defund, repeal, and replace.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano 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 state governments. Nevertheless, 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............
============================================
Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member
The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
======================================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
Ron Paul wrote that the Republicans will not repeal Obamacare — US bankruptcy will.
He’s correct. The only question is how long it will take.
Truth to the Left is that which advances their goals. Factuality is irrelevant.
BTTT
medpagetoday
AAPS becomes first physician group to file suit to overturn new healthcare reform law: http://bit.ly/djzE23
about 9 hours ago via TweetDeck
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.