Posted on 03/27/2012 8:20:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The guy who uploaded this to YouTube calls it a “benchslap.” It's loads of fun, and the point about limited powers will sound familiar. The key part comes early when Scalia jumps in to challenge Verrilli's citation of Court precedent. Those cases dealt with commerce, he says; in this case, the legislation is aimed at people who aren't participating in commerce, i.e. people without insurance. That's a gut-punch to the left since, once you make that move conceptually, the Commerce Clause defense of the statute is hanging by a thread. You can follow his thinking over the rest of the clip from there. If it's not commerce, then Congress has no power to regulate it, and if Congress has no power to regulate it, then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states. And to think, a few days ago, Democrats thought they might be able to use Scalia's Raich opinion to swing him over to their side.
Roberts was a bit more equivocal in today’s arguments but read Philip Klein’s analysis of the rhetoric he used in his comments from the bench. There were an awful lot of phrases in there suggesting he was arguing from belief against the statute, not merely as a devil’s advocate to probe the lawyers’ arguments. Meanwhile, over at SCOTUSblog, Kevin Russell looks at Roberts’s and Alito’s questioning and wonders, “Is Kennedy the only possible fifth vote for the government?” His conclusion: Yep, pretty much. Exit question: C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.
I say it again, if they vote it’s constitutional, we are going to have to do a separation from King George again.
What’s left, dear Judge, is revolution.
The point is well made.
Not only will the end of obamacare mandate be a small sign of sanity and a blow for freedome, but from that ALL the legislation stretched from the Commerce Clause are again in play.
With the right legal challenges, we can finally lurch towards a government that resembles what the Founders designed.
Next up: restore Amendments IX and X.
Yes!
There’s an anger under the surface and it will surface very soon.
Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”
The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.
Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
According to Michelle Bachmann (R Min), there are currently over 10, 000 REGULATIONS attached to Obama”care.”
_______
The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.
As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.
Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.
Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!
Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.
IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.
____________
To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:
Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.
Obama”care” was 2409 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.
Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”
Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.
Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.
Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.
BTW, impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.
Yup, it will be a king george moment. Problem is, where are the leaders equivalent to our founding fathers?
Agreed, hence part II of my tagline since Jan 2009. I wish I could fit this:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”
No problem for nobama, if the S.C. decision doesn’t make him happy, he’ll just pull an Andy Jackson and ignore it.
Constitution be damned, S.C. be damned, sign a few executive orders and all is well again.
Good post! Get rid of this abomination!
This tells me that the Justices, who will be the majority, have looked into the mandate question, and have found it to be an easy judgement to make: It is unconstitutional. The 27 states suing the Obama Administration over the constitutionality of Obamacare have done the difficult work making the case. The Justices will have easy work writing their decision.
Even James “Snakehead” Carville has emerged from his hole saying that having Obamacare struck down would be the best thing to happen to the Democrats. Democrats are looking at the disaster ahead and are trying to soften the blow.
Actually, it would be the best thing to happen for the Republicans. It would prove for all time that the Democrats are willing to toss out the Constitution to get what they want. And because of that, will be seen as the dangerous political force that must be eliminated from the American system.
Whether or not the Supremes toss this abomination into the dustbin of history, the thing that really saddens me is the huge percentage of Americans who have no clue what’s in the Constitution, don’t know what it is for, don’t know why we have it, and couldn’t care less.
America has become a nation of idiots.
>> the thing that really saddens me is the huge percentage of Americans who have no clue
Nor self-respect.
For too many Americans, freedom is da free stuff. America has grown up too many moral degenerates.
“I say it again, if they vote it’s constitutional, we are going to have to do a separation from King George again.”
I agree, it has been remarked to me in wonder that we have king George’s hand picked men to decide victory and defeat in a war for our rights.
Well I say we had King George’s hand picked men in 1775 too, they decided then that our rights were subject to their discretion, not the inalienable gift from our creators.
Unfortunately there are leftist out there that must be made to remember that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I will not submit to leftist tyranny.
Next round...doing what Fluck proposed....regulate insurance companies to do specifics like abortion.
Kinda like Flood insurance....which came about via government and is very expensive and in a lot of cases and very unnecessary.....but try to get a mortgage.
I’d like to see the overturn written into the congressional record along with the signatures of the MILLIONS of Americans who fought against Obamacare. That’s how important I think it will be.
What about Romneycare?? Isn’t that mandatory??
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper, because it violated the sovereignty of he States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.
The argument here is that this alaso is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper, becuse it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If thegovernment can do this, what -- what else can it not do?
GENERAL VERRILLI: This does not violate the norm of proper as this Court articulated it in Printz or in New York because it does not interfere with the States as sovereigns. This is a regulation that -- this is a regulation --
JUSTICE SCALIA: No, That wasn't my point. This is not the only constitutional principle that exists.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But it --
JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government. Do you acknowledge that that's a principle?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Of course we do, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. That's what we are talking about here.
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.