Skip to comments.Chief Justice Says States Have Compromised Their Sovereignty
Posted on 03/30/2012 6:29:41 AM PDT by IbJensen
Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday what has long been known but seldom spoken. During the third and final day of Supreme Court hearings on whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is unconstitutional, Roberts said states have been compromising their sovereignty for decades through increased reliance on the federal government for money and accompanying directions on the governance of state affairs.
"It seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the federal government has done," the chief justice said during Wednesday's nearly three hours of hearings on the controversial health insurance law.
The final day's arguments had to do with whether the law could stand if the justices find the mandate for uncovered individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional something the court's conservative majority appears ready to do. Another feature of the law called into question by lawyers opposing the act is the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for low-income families. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is expanded to include a larger number of parents, as well as low-income adults with no dependent children. Half of the 32 million who would get new health insurance coverage under the law would receive it through Medicaid. Starting in 2014, the federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost of newly eligible participants. The federal share would be scaled back to 90 percent by 2020. States would still have the right to opt out of the program, but would stand to lose all of the federal funding, including the money they are already receiving. Currently all 50 state participate in the program.
"Obamacare is going to expand Medicaid, and the taxpayers absolutely can't afford it," Dr. Alieta Eck said at a rally against the law outside the Supreme Court. Thomas Miller, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agreed, telling the Public broadcasting Service: "The states say, we can't even afford the current Medicaid program, and this would in effect give them no flexibility to make any adjustments that are reasonable adjustments, and say maybe can cover some more people in a certain way, but not under the rigid federal rules."
Dr. L. Toni Lewis, who is in favor of the Affordable Care Act, voiced her support for the expansion of Medicaid. "As a doctor, I tell you that Medicaid works for seniors, it works for kids, it works for people with disabilities, and it works for families," she said.
Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General and current Georgetown Law School professor, argued for the 26 states opposing the law that requiring the states to expand the Medicaid program or lose the federal funding would have a "coercive" effect, a claim that drew a sharp rebuttal from Justice Elena Kagan "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care," she said. "It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you." Roberts observed that the states have been accepting federal money and conditions attached to it, "since the New Deal" of the 1930s.
But the real sticking point in Wednesday's debate was the purchasing mandate and whether the rest of the law could stand without it. The law prohibits insurance companies from turning down applicants or charging higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions, thereby adding costs intended to be offset by bringing in more young and healthy clients through the mandate, with its penalty for not purchasing insurance.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued for upholding the validity of the rest of the law even if the controversial mandate is ruled unconstitutional. But if the individual mandate were ruled out, asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, what would happen to the insurance industry, which would now be in the hole for $350 billion over 10 years?
"We don't think it's in the court's place to look at the budgetary implications," Kneedler replied. But the justices grappled with the dilemma of taking what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described as either a "wrecking ball" or "salvage" approach to the law if the mandate is ruled out. They differed over which course would result in the greater intrusion of judicial power into the legislative process. One question yet to be decided was whether letting stand the costly requirements imposed on the insurance companies without the mandate to pay for them would be consistent with the intent of Congress. Kennedy, concerned about what that might do to the insurance industry, suggested that letting the law stand absent the mandate would be a greater imposition of judicial authority than striking the law down in its entirety.
"If we lack the competence to even assess whether there's a risk, then isn't this an awesome exercise of judicial power ... to say we're doing something and we're not telling you what the consequences might be?" he asked Kneedler.
" No, I don't think so," the Justice Department attorney replied, " because when you're talking about monetary consequences, you're looking through the act, you're looking behind the act, rather than the court's function is to look at the text and structure of the (act) and what the substantive provisions of the act themselves mean." Justice Ginsburg contended that "the salvage job" of upholding those portions of the law that pass constitutional muster would be the "more conservative approach." Justice Stephen Breyer appeared at various points in the discussion to be on either side of the issue.
"I would stay out of politics," he said, arguing against a judicial editing of the law. "That's for Congress, not us." Yet at another point he suggested having the opposing lawyers go over the law to find points of agreement and report back to the court, something, he acknowledged might be a "pipe dream." Justice Antonin Scalia, favored ruling the entire law constitutionally invalid rather than have the justices wade through the act's thousands of pages, picking and choosing which provisions pass constitutional muster.
"You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" Scalia said. "Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?" A 1981 Reagan appointee, Scalia was not bashful about addressing the political aspects of the controversy before the court. He asked the Clement if there was "any chance that all 26 states opposing (the law) have Republican governors, and all of the states supporting it have Democratic governors?"
"There's a correlation, Justice Scalia," Clement acknowledged.
Opposition, however, appears to be driven more by ideological than by partisan considerations, as attorneys for the states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses argued that the law goes beyond the powers delegated to Congress by the constitution, particularly the provision authorizing Congress to regulate commerce among the states. Under the Affordable Care Act, regulation of commerce includes a requirement that all chain restaurants list the calorie count of each item on the menu.
Other lesser-known provisions, said Art Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society, include home visitations by government agents, the possibility of forced immunizations and "Community Transformation Grants." The law in total, Thomson said, "will intrude on every aspect of life in America, from cradle to grave."
Kagan and the pencil-knecked Ginsberg have the demise of this nation in their sights. Kagan apparently fell asleep in most of her classes and her ignorance shows clearly.
—”We don’t think it’s in the court’s place to look at the budgetary implications,” Kneedler replied.—
I’m glad SOMEONE gets it. Their job is to look at the CONSTITUTIONAL implications, explicitly, and let the budgetary chips (and all other chips) fall where they may.
There is hope in the number of states(29) that has sued the federal govt.
Now if we could only get 9 more, then all power can be taken from the govt. 38 states can throw out Congress, POTUS, over-ride the SCOTUS.
Ultimate trump card.
That is all well and good, however the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that any power not given directly to the Federal Government is reserved to the States.
How about we go back to that for a change.
I’ve been saying it for a while.
Ruth Bader Buzzi?
The States became wards of the Federal government in the 17th Amendment. You effectively went to a House of Representatives and a House of Super Representatives. The voice of the States was lost in the Senate.
This problem started with the institution of the income tax and was made infinitely worse with the introduction of direct withholding. Once the Feds could rab all the money first evryone was put in the position of being supplicants on their knees with begging bowls.
The seventeenth amendment left the states defenseless against the feds.
And modern national media is able to influence senatorial elections (IE:macaca) so they don’t even truly represent the general populace of the state.
Justice Kagan has compromised the Court’s integrity
by interrupting the pleading lawyer
IN A CASE FROM WHICH SHE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF.
But the Court has no shame, and no interest
in integrity or Honor or truth or justice
or the American way.
When Obummer told his audience “we are working under the radar” about gun control, I truly believe the Obamacare has much to do with this statement. If it is instituted we will find 50% of the causes of expenses are from not “eating your peas”. We will be mandated to eat peas. 30% is from being too old. Kill off the dross. 20% is from gunshots, so get rid of the guns. Now, we will all be happy and prosperous. This is mandated by the law you know.
Rule 47. Reference to “State Court” and “State Law”
The term “state court,” when used in these Rules, includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the courts of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the local courts of Guam. References in these Rules to the statutes of a State include the statutes of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territory of Guam.
The states DID NOT give it up voluntarily.
The states LOST their sovereignty when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT began printing PRIVATE CHECKS (Federal Reserve Notes) as counterfeit and then CONFISCATED THE GOLD that was the only thing that might compete with FRN’s.
Once that was done, the Feda were free to print as much as they wanted, and bribe/coerce.force any state at all to do WHATEVER the feds decided was right, or what would bring them and their buddies the best deal.
Before the FRA (Federal Reserve Act), the STATES (the people) created the wealth and chose to (or chose not to) give it to the Federal Government).
After that, the Federal government (actually, it’s agents) created the wealth and made the States (the PEOPLE!!!) beg for it.
This all began when the Senate which was suppose to represent the interests of the states was turned into a more elite version of the house.
Did the states give it up or the Feds took it? There are a lot of state cases the fed’s overturned and took power. Also, the feds passed mandates on states and had to pay for them.
Not clear to me just what Roberts means by this. Have the states forever forfeited sovereignty by taking fed cash, or is he saying the Court needs to start ruling against that?
Even Ronaldus Magnus stooped to this sneaky little maneuver to get the states to raise their drinking ages to please MADD.
I think they believed they could effectively deal with it without the media sideshow that would have resulted from her recusal.
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.