Did the Supreme Court Tip its Hand on obummerCare?
Saved from obummerCare by Anthony Kennedy on the basis of the Tenth Amendment! I won't be surprised. Kennedy has been fairly libertarian.
Ping
Did the Supreme Court Tip its Hand on obummerCare?
Saved from obummerCare by Anthony Kennedy on the basis of the Tenth Amendment! I won't be surprised. Kennedy has been fairly libertarian.
I am hoping that some small glimmer of confidence might be restored soon.
What this article fails to mention is that this was a 9-0 win for the 10th Amendment. That bodes very ill for Obamacare.
More importantly, this guts obastard’s attempt to back door gun control using the UN’s Small Arms Treaty...
I intimated this in another thread, but IMHO...
SCOTUS is hearing We the People over the past few years and is aware of the far-left’s agenda of the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, even if they don’t admit it to themselves. Which kind of encroaches on their territory - the U.S. Constitution. Even if a SC Justice is liberal, they’re still personally very much in need of the preservation of the U.S. Constitution. In that respect, the SCOTUS is a sleeping bear that has no army and no police to enforce it’s rulings; it knows that it relies on Executive branches for enforcement.
Courts are very willing to allow and even force legislatures to over-regulate and over-spend in a “give the people what they want” mindset - until economic catastrophe looms and they envision the opposite sentiment having a powerful contingent amongst the citizenry.
I think the SCOTUS is going to be moving towards a Constitutionalist “revival” period. Of course, in the end, as some power is returned to States where it belongs, States are beginning to compete with each other for citizens and businesses like never before due to modern mobility. And it will be the stinging rod of failure that corrects State legislatures that over-regulate and over-spend, which requires them to over-tax their citizens and beg for Federal crumbs. Some States will choose to model their laws in the minimalist fashion of the U.S. Constitution, others will bury their citizens in legal spaghetti. In any case, hopefully the SCOTUS will start very vigorously ripping the teeth out of the Federal bureaucracy, thereby helping to preserve it, as the SCOTUS restores the U.S. Constitution to it’s purpose of binding together the States as a nation of free citizens rather than trying to implement a Federal bureaucracy that can be all things to all people.
Kennedy was also, however, one of the crucial swing votes in nullifying Texas’ law against sodomy, IIRC. He goes both ways, to use a bad pun.
I think the Bond decision is significant, however. I cannot recall any decision that hinges so much on the Tenth Amendment. We are so used to seeing SCOTUS decisions that are perversions of the Fourteenth.
Will Kennedy or any of the others want to vote the 10th Amendment is unconstitutional to satisfy Obama? Not likely.
That’s a very interesting analysis; thanks for posting it.
I truly hope the SCOTUS does not evolve their thought process to agree with The Won that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”.
Let us hope so.
” Justice Kennedy said at the hearing: “The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty; and if that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can’t it be raised?” This made court watchers wonder if this might forecast how Justice Kennedy might vote on ObamaCare.”
Inheres? Liberty infringed by criminal conviction? Anyone who can guess how Kennedy might rule on ObamaCare from such a gobbldeyquote is a better man than I.
I’m betting on a 5-4 decision that its unconstitutional. The final nail in Barry’s coffin.
("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.")I guess the brilliant jurists on the 3rd Circus court STOPPED READING the 10th Amendment at the comma after the phrase "states respectively" and never saw the words "OR TO THE PEOPLE."On appeal, the 3rd Circuit then ruled that Bond lacked standing to challenge her conviction, finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the Tenth Amendment.
I sent out a ping to an earlier THREAD alerting the 10th Amendment Division of this development. Tagged and bagged this thread however.
JMHO but I think Jug Ears had better fasten his seat belt; he's in for a rough ride.
As far as I can tell this case stands for the individuals’ standing to sue under the 10th Amendment.
This case does not stand for the scope of the 10th Amendment.
No he didn't. If they found that, Bond wouldn't have to go back to state court to make an argument on 10A grounds. What they found was that 10A does place limits on the feds' authority and that individuals who are thus harmed can argue that that has happened in a particular case, and not just states. They left it for the lower court to decide if the feds have overstepped in Bond's particular circumstances.