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

Skip to comments.

White House Shifts Legal Gears as ObamaCare Heads to Supreme Court
New American ^ | 3/20/12 | Bob Adelmann

Posted on 03/20/2012 7:58:08 AM PDT by Mikey_1962

The pressure of the continuing countdown to Monday, March 26, when the Supreme Court takes on the challenge to ObamaCare, has forced legal advisors to the White House to change their strategy in hopes of successfully rebuffing it and preserving the Obama administration’s key legislative victory signed into law in March, 2010.

It’s all about the mandate and whether it can be sustained by claiming justification for it under a generous reading of the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) in the Constitution. Without that mandate, the administration claims that the rest of the law would necessarily fail due to its excessive costs. The Congressional Budget Office just reported that those costs would be double what the Obama administration touted in its cram-down of the law two years ago. And another CBO study said that, if implemented, millions of citizens — between 3 million and 20 million — would actually lose their present coverage, while public polls continue to show declining support for the whole idea of the federal government’s virtual takeover of the country’s health delivery system.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in January showed that most of those polled think that ObamaCare, if implemented, will cost jobs, hurt the economy, and cost more than projected. Last week’s poll from the same source showed that two-thirds of those polled “say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate…or the law in its entirety.” According to the pollsters, "[T]he law has never earned majority support in ABC/Post polls — and this update…finds a strong sense its critics are dominating the debate. Seventy percent of Americans report hearing mainly negative things about the law…"

Another measure of the intensity surrounding the pending Supreme Court hearings (a record six hours are scheduled over three days next week) is the number of “amicus" or "friend of the court" briefs that have been submitted by parties who are interested in influencing the outcome of a lawsuit but who are not parties to it. Reuters reported that 136 briefs have been filed with the court (a stack about two feet high), a third more than the previous record number filed back in 2003 over an affirmative action lawsuit involving the University of Michigan.

The change in strategy moves the defense of ObamaCare away from the Commerce Clause and directs it instead to the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18) of the Constitution, which reads:

The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The argument goes like this: Because it’s [allegedly] proper for the government to reform the interstate market in health insurance by requiring insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of health status without charging higher premiums, then it follows that the mandate forcing participation is “necessary and proper” to keep the additional costs that regulation would cause from bankrupting the country.

The White House recognizes the reality that they have four justices likely to support ObamaCare, and four who are likely to rule against it, leaving one — Justice Antonin Scalia — in the middle. In a previous case, Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” way of carrying out the government’s broader power to criminalize drug usage. Such a claim, using Scalia’s own argument, is giving the White House the opening it needs to keep Scalia in line, remain consistent and force him to side with the administration on the matter.

With so much attention about to be directed to the Supreme Court’s hearings next week, it is going to be hard for the court to avoid offending someone. If ObamaCare is upheld, the Supremes suffer in the court of public opinion. If ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional, the Obama administration will suffer a grievous, perhaps fatal, blow to its reelection efforts.

Of course, analysts have pointed out that the court just may find a way to delay making any decision at all until after the election, thereby offending everyone and confirming for observers that the rule of law no longer matters and that the federal government is free to do whatever it pleases in disregard of the Constitution altogether.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: healthcare; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in January showed that most of those polled think that ObamaCare, if implemented, will cost jobs, hurt the economy, and cost more than projected.

The people know the truth.

1 posted on 03/20/2012 7:58:12 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

I wonder if the people know the following:

HOME SALES TAX

I thought you might find this interesting, — maybe even SICKENING!

The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, — before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren’t the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It’s in the health care bill, — and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn’t come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is ‘change you can believe in’?

Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, — who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren’t aware that this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren’t alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either.

You can check this out for yourself at:

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book.

VOTERS NEED TO KNOW


2 posted on 03/20/2012 8:00:44 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

It sounds more to me like a sign of desperation if they have decided to completely change their strategy a week before oral arguments...


3 posted on 03/20/2012 8:00:47 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

The undocumented pRes_ _ent will lie, destroy further
the Constitution, and SCOTUS will love him for it.


4 posted on 03/20/2012 8:01:22 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

so the people who paid their way,m paid their bills, did what is responsible get shafted again while those living in rentals and have no desire to ever own but stay and play playstation or canvas for the lefts agenda while getting a few bucks reap the rewards.


5 posted on 03/20/2012 8:05:05 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
In a previous case, Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” way of carrying out the government’s broader power to criminalize drug usage.

I just KNEW that it would come down to that! That Opinion was one of the worst ever handed down.

6 posted on 03/20/2012 8:05:20 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
If ObamaCare is upheld, the Supremes suffer in the court of public opinion.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be beyond reproach from public opinion, which is why they are appointed for life.

7 posted on 03/20/2012 8:05:41 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a filibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

“If ObamaCare is upheld, the Supremes suffer in the court of public opinion.”

This really will be a test for the Supreme Court. At a time when faith in public institutions is rapidly eroding, a decision to prop up ObamaCare by the Supreme Court pretty much would be a formal announcement that the Constitution which founded the nation is no longer in effect.


8 posted on 03/20/2012 8:09:33 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

—...Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” ...—

I almost laughed out loud at that one. Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things. That is the problem with the mandate from the git-go.

I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the constitutions of the US.


9 posted on 03/20/2012 8:09:44 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either.

And each and everyone one of them should be tared, feathered and run out of town on a rail for NOT knowing it and voting for it anyway!

10 posted on 03/20/2012 8:10:10 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: apillar
It sounds more to me like a sign of desperation if they have decided to completely change their strategy a week before oral arguments...

Sounds to me like they have been saving thier "best" arguments till the end, especially given Scalia's predeliction overreaching the commerce clause ...

11 posted on 03/20/2012 8:13:20 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
There is absolutely nothing from the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, State ratifying Convention records to support this horrific and purposeful misuse of the necessary and proper clause.

Necessary laws implement enumerated powers. The entirety of Obamacare fails this test.

Proper laws are consistent with a government dedicated to liberty, our unalienable rights as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment. Forcing citizens to enter into private contracts is a direct assault on what little remains of the Ninth.

12 posted on 03/20/2012 8:17:50 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
“In a previous case, Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” way of carrying out the government’s broader power to criminalize drug usage.”

Which is totally unrelated to this case, and isn't in any way similar.

Pot is illegal under Federal law, even medical pot, unless in DR proscribed FDA approved form. Private health Ins, or the total lack thereof, has never been illegal and isn't now.

13 posted on 03/20/2012 8:21:04 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
“Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things.”

Absolutely. When I read it, it looked like an absurd comparison.

14 posted on 03/20/2012 8:22:23 AM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
At a time when faith in public institutions is rapidly eroding, a decision to prop up ObamaCare by the Supreme Court pretty much would be a formal announcement that the Constitution which founded the nation is no longer in effect.

That happened a very long time ago ...

15 posted on 03/20/2012 8:24:00 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
Such a claim, using Scalia’s own argument, is giving the White House the opening it needs to keep Scalia in line, remain consistent and force him to side with the administration on the matter.

Keep Scalia in line, hahahaha.

Justice Scalia ruled that the gummint could prevent people from growing an ILLEGAL PRODUCT because there was a law already on the books against it.

This in no way "forces Scalia to side with the administration" and if obama's legal team tries to go heavy handed with him, Scalia will show them why our people had such respect for the real Brotherhood.

16 posted on 03/20/2012 8:26:01 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Necessary laws implement enumerated powers.

Ah, but therein lies the rub! The regulation of interstate commerce is an enumerated power. The court, in Gonzales vs. Raich concluded that a product (in that case medical marijuana) that was privately grown for private consumption was never more than "one step away" from interstate commerce - and therefore the Federal Government could pass laws "necessary and proper" to prohibit sich growth.

Health Care is a "product" and, as such - never more than one step away from interstate commerce ....

Forcing citizens to enter into private contracts is a direct assault on what little remains of the Ninth.

The argument they are using is: "that a person's decision to not buy health insurance affects commerce by materially increasing the costs of others' health insurance."

When Gonzales vs. Raich was handed down, I substituted tomatoes to make a point - it applies here as well (and makes a mockery of this argument as it did the decision then): a person's decision to not buy tomatoes affects commerce by materially increasing the costs of others' tomatoes.

17 posted on 03/20/2012 8:33:52 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Which is totally unrelated to this case, and isn't in any way similar.

Oh, it is VERY related! The case was NOT argued based on the Illegality of Marijauna, but whether the federal government had the power to regulate it under the commerce clause! This was the case where Scalia established the "one step away from interstate commerce" test.

The argument here is that by NOT engaging in commerce, you are adversely affecting the price others must pay (I know, oxymoron), thus under the powers "necessary and proper" to the commerce clause, the Federal government can oblige you to engage in said commerce.

18 posted on 03/20/2012 8:41:38 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things.

Really? If you absolutely need tomatoes and the government prevents you from growing them yourself, are you not forced to purchase them? (Assuming of course, you only avail yourself of legal avenues of procurement).

19 posted on 03/20/2012 8:48:05 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Still very different. There is a very very good chance that medical pot will, and does, end up in interstate commerce. There is no chance that lack of health Ins will.

Something that doesn't exist can't be transported.

20 posted on 03/20/2012 8:49:14 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I almost laughed out loud at that one. Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things.

Two appeals court justices, both friends of Scalia, cited his opinion in Raich to uphold Obamacare:

Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.

21 posted on 03/20/2012 8:58:54 AM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the Constitution of the US.”

You have identified the problem, four of them don’t, and the others waiver. On top of that, they view The Law as an entity in and of itself, rather than a vehicle for ordering the country’s processes. I never cease to be amazed at how willing they are to continue to sidestep dealing with the critical issues of our time. You just have to wonder how long they can fail to deal with the 2A head on. They are all less than adequate.


22 posted on 03/20/2012 9:00:49 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the Constitution of the US.”

You have identified the problem, four of them don’t, and the others waiver. On top of that, they view The Law as an entity in and of itself, rather than a vehicle for ordering the country’s processes. I never cease to be amazed at how willing they are to continue to sidestep dealing with the critical issues of our time. You just have to wonder how long they can fail to deal with the 2A head on. They are all less than adequate.


23 posted on 03/20/2012 9:02:45 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Gonzales vs. Raich applies to ANY product or service. It has nothing to do with how great the chances are that a given product or service has of being involved in interstate commerce. It effectively establishes that any product or service is "never more than one step away from interstate commerce".

There is no chance that lack of health Ins will.

Wrong, there is EVERY chance that lack of Health Insurance will end up in Interstate Commerce! (At least that is what the adminsitration will argue!)

The Adminstration is arguing that your NOT purchasing insurance adversely affects the price paid by everyone else in the country and therefore the compulsary clauses are necessary and proper to fulfill the government's duties under the commerce clause.

24 posted on 03/20/2012 9:02:55 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Still very different. There is a very very good chance that medical pot will, and does, end up in interstate commerce. There is no chance that lack of health Ins will.

So? According to Scalia:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Scalia concurring in Raich

25 posted on 03/20/2012 9:06:36 AM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

They won’t address 0bama’s eligibility because of their fear of social unrest.

Perhaps we need to be a little more “unrestful” about this.


26 posted on 03/20/2012 9:06:36 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Madison said it before ratification, that if, in his case, the General Welfare clause was interpreted to justify anything, then the rest of the constitution was moot.

Now we have, in addition to the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause, and now the “Necessary and Proper” clause being used to circumvent the very essence of the Constitution - that of limited general government.


27 posted on 03/20/2012 9:10:28 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Now ...

Now? That boat left port a very long time ago ...

28 posted on 03/20/2012 9:18:59 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and other Anti-Federalists saw this coming: I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words “general defence and public welfare”. These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, “all and some”. And should this construction prevail, all limits to the Federal Government are done away. This opinion, formed on the first rise of the question, I have never seen reason to change, whether in or out of power; but, on the contrary, find it strengthened and confirmed by five and twenty years of additional reflection and experience: and any countenance given to it by any regular organ of the government, I should consider more ominous than anything which has yet occurred. ~ Thomas Jefferson; letter to Spencer Roane, 1815.
29 posted on 03/20/2012 9:34:46 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

—Really? If you absolutely need tomatoes and the government prevents you from growing them yourself, are you not forced to purchase them? —

No. You have the right to go without them. Likewise with health insurance. I actually know someone that has no health insurance because they are so well off they can cover any health expense as you or I would cover an oil change or a new set of tires. Should they be required to purchase health insurance.


30 posted on 03/20/2012 9:42:06 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
“ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in January showed that most of those polled think that ObamaCare, if implemented, will cost jobs, hurt the economy, and cost more than projected.” But most democrats are still willing to support the bill to show their support for Obama.
31 posted on 03/20/2012 9:46:03 AM PDT by mikemoose (Pray for the Unborn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

“it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

Key word: Regulate.

Also, Regulate is very different from “mandate the purchase of insurance”.

I think very specific things are being argued in this case. It is ALL about requiring people, by simple virtue of being American, to buy something, and at the federal level. That a single judge would even consider to rule in favor of it stinks to high heaven.


32 posted on 03/20/2012 9:47:02 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Nice way to avoid the question and the issues involved.


33 posted on 03/20/2012 9:47:58 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
... lack of Health Insurance will end up in Interstate Commerce

Since health insurance is regulated by the states and cannot be purchased from an out-of-state insurer, I'm curious to know how whether or not I purchase health insurance can affect interstate commerce. Currently there is no interstate health insurance market, is there?

34 posted on 03/20/2012 9:48:25 AM PDT by Gee Wally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

“it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

Also, it is just an opinion. One I disagree with.


35 posted on 03/20/2012 9:48:32 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Key word: Regulate.

Exactly. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

Also, Regulate is very different from “mandate the purchase of insurance”.

In what way? A mandate to do something is a regulation of that activity.

I think very specific things are being argued in this case.

Agreed, but you are ignoring the arguments and the precedents.

The administration is arguing that by NOT purchasing the service, you make it more expensive for all others (smaller pool sharing the risk) and thus you are adversly affecting commerce. Therefore they have the "right" to regulate. IOW, they have moved the goalposts and have a good amount of precedent on thier side, Gonzales vs. Raich being one of them.

We can argue all we want about whether the arguments meet original intent, but that is moot as original intent no longer applies to anything regarding the commerce clause - the courts having eviscerated it long ago.

36 posted on 03/20/2012 9:59:09 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Beagle8U; MrB; Spartan79
You might find this FR post interesting.
37 posted on 03/20/2012 9:59:28 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gee Wally
I'm curious to know how whether or not I purchase health insurance can affect interstate commerce.

... Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. Scalia in Gonzales vs. Raich.

Currently there is no interstate health insurance market, is there?

Under ObamaCare there is ....

38 posted on 03/20/2012 10:04:01 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

I get what you are saying, but my point is that it is the same kind of twisting of logic that allowed a college kid back in the early 70’s to write a term paper proving black is white.

You could use that line of thinking, twisting as you see fit, to allow literally anything.

Which, I confess, is what I fear and why this case is such a big deal to me. If they side with Obama, the US is officially finished and the constitution is LITERALLY (not “mostly) not worth the paper it’s written on.

At that point, it is every man for himself.


39 posted on 03/20/2012 10:19:12 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Please stop to focus on necessary and proper.

For instance, the Constitution of 1787 allowed for direct taxation. Congress could have passed a tax of $5 per person to pay the national debt at the time, for it was clearly necessary. Congress could NOT issue general warrants for federal tax collectors to enter each and every home in order to collect the tax because the IVth Amendment prohibits general warrants.

Even if Obamacare is necessary to implement an enumerated power (it isn't), it must be proper. That means it may not violate another portion of the Constitution, which it does, the Ninth Amendment.

It is a two fold test, both necessity and propriety are required.

Here is a thorough analysis of the necessary and proper clause by Randy Barnett.

40 posted on 03/20/2012 10:24:29 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Please stop to focus on necessary and proper.

That point has already been settled by the court in Gonzales vs. Raich.

That means it may not violate another portion of the Constitution, which it does, the Ninth Amendment.

Gonzales (and a lot of precedent prior to that!) does exactly that! It establishes that almost ANY activity can be deemed to fall under the commerce clause AND that these types of activities are "never more than one step away from interstate commerce".

The court has repeatedly found that the constitution does not mean what it black letter says, but rather that it means what the COURT says it says! We likely face a 4-4 split with Scalia, who penned the "never one step away" clause being the decider. THAT does not make me comfortable!

41 posted on 03/20/2012 11:14:26 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
You could use that line of thinking, twisting as you see fit, to allow literally anything.

That is exactly what that decision allows!

In 2005, I wrote:
"Not only is it impossible to distinguish 'controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate' from 'controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate' but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms," he said. "As the court explains, tomatoes which are grown at home and possessed for personal use are never more than an instant from the interstate market and this is so whether or not the possession is for nutritional use or lawful use under the laws of a particular state." Post 38

This is more or less a simple substitution. It is absurd - but - it is also now precedent.

42 posted on 03/20/2012 11:27:33 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Do you agree or disagree with the Raich decision?


43 posted on 03/20/2012 11:54:52 AM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

—Do you agree or disagree with the Raich decision?—

Well, it’s sticky for me. It offends me that the government can regulate something that may grow wild in some areas. However, the way the laws are written I do believe the decision was within the constitution.

But I believe there is a chasm between the government preventing someone from doing something and forcing them to do something. Take the Jim Crow laws. In that case, the government said you could not discriminate based on race. The “kept them from doing something”. But with affirmative action, it was not only the opposite (forcing them to do something) but was actually government forced racial discrimination (forcing businesses to hire or otherwise deal with certain people over others based solely on race). The former was “government permitted” discrimination while the latter was “government forced” discrimination.

It is disgusting.


44 posted on 03/20/2012 12:05:34 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RC2

I’m only surprised the bastards did not try to make the tax retroactive......


45 posted on 03/20/2012 12:12:55 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Check my prior links and learn.


46 posted on 03/20/2012 12:43:49 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
However, the way the laws are written I do believe the decision was within the constitution.

What does the way the laws are written have to do whether Raich is within the Constitution or not?

You also just endorsed the New Deal Commerce Clause, which makes possible federal control of education, welfare, the environment, as well as health care.

47 posted on 03/20/2012 1:36:23 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

Only Fox News covered this reality. Only the Tea Party raised h e double toothpicks about it.


48 posted on 03/20/2012 2:48:00 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Whatever...

I figured that was where you were going. Your question was so loaded I could smell the gunpowder. :-)


49 posted on 03/20/2012 3:23:00 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
IOW, you can't justify your statement putting acts of Congress above the Constitution:

"However, the way the laws are written I do believe the decision was within the constitution."

That's an expression of contempt for the Constitution.

50 posted on 03/20/2012 3:41:38 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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