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

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice Says States Have Compromised Their Sovereignty
The New American ^ | 3/29/2012 | Jack Kenny

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 10thammendment; constitution; evilcentralgovt; justiceroberts; medicaid; obozo; scotusocareday3; statesovereignty; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
The people of the states have voluntary given up their sovereignty. This statement is true and so is John Roberts statement although he is talking about a different set of states than what most people are thinking about. In the court rules, number 47, the court defines what states they have jurisdiction over. Absent from that list of “states” is any of the 50 states. The territories and federal districts, listed in rule 47, are the states John Roberts is talking about. So the court will rule in favor of the Act because that is historically what they have done in recognizing the power of the Congress over the states listed in rule 47. The Congress is the ruler of the states.

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.

1 posted on 03/30/2012 6:29:45 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

knecked=necked


2 posted on 03/30/2012 6:31:09 AM PDT by IbJensen (We now have a government requiring citizens prove they are insured but not that they are citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

—”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.


3 posted on 03/30/2012 6:33:29 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


4 posted on 03/30/2012 6:35:09 AM PDT by bestintxas (Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


5 posted on 03/30/2012 6:36:29 AM PDT by Lets Roll NOW (A baby isn't a punishment, Obama is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I’ve been saying it for a while.


6 posted on 03/30/2012 6:36:52 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Ruth Bader Buzzi?


7 posted on 03/30/2012 6:37:00 AM PDT by csmusaret (I have kleptomania, but when it gets too bad I take something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


8 posted on 03/30/2012 6:38:08 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


9 posted on 03/30/2012 6:38:45 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Romney's judicial appointments were more radical than Obama's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


10 posted on 03/30/2012 6:39:11 AM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck
"Once the Feds could grab all the money..."
11 posted on 03/30/2012 6:40:05 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Romney's judicial appointments were more radical than Obama's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


12 posted on 03/30/2012 6:40:20 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: IbJensen

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.


13 posted on 03/30/2012 6:42:52 AM PDT by Safetgiver (I'd rather die under a free American sky than live under a Socialist regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
What Roberts is saying, is: 'You (the States) need to fix this problem, and we (the Supremes) are not going to make it any worse by validating the penultimate (Commerce Clause) intrusion by Obamacare.'
14 posted on 03/30/2012 6:42:55 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


15 posted on 03/30/2012 6:43:16 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


16 posted on 03/30/2012 6:45:13 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


17 posted on 03/30/2012 6:45:31 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


18 posted on 03/30/2012 6:45:47 AM PDT by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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.


19 posted on 03/30/2012 6:45:47 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I think they believed they could effectively deal with it without the media sideshow that would have resulted from her recusal.


20 posted on 03/30/2012 6:46:56 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: djf

Good post!


21 posted on 03/30/2012 6:50:39 AM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Have the states forever forfeited sovereignty by taking fed cash.

That's how I look at it. However there is extortion involved as you pointed out.
22 posted on 03/30/2012 6:52:32 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Thanks.
It’s the truth, and the bottom line truth. And it’s the reasons for all the checks and balances that the founders wrote into the Constitution.

But the money-changers don’t like it...

:-)


23 posted on 03/30/2012 6:56:22 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
An alternate hypothesis is that they are corrupt to the core.

They ex parte met with, and bowed before,
an undocumented, if not foreign, litigant
on a case before them, HERE:

.



24 posted on 03/30/2012 6:56:28 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

this is what I’ve been saying we need do take back our towns counties and states and get off the teat then the gov will shrink.


25 posted on 03/30/2012 6:57:03 AM PDT by Gasshog (going to get what all those libs asked for, but its not what they expected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Speaking of extortion in regards to taking federal money, Mayor Janice Daniels of Troy Michigan is facing recall for refusing to accept federal money.

She’s true tea party victory.


26 posted on 03/30/2012 6:58:15 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
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."

Maybe it's me and I'm not smart enough to understand enlightened jurisprudence, but Kagen sounds like a dumbass here...

27 posted on 03/30/2012 6:59:49 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria

And might I add it’s the reason the United States is now what, 15T?? in debt.
Because it’s not real. It’s insubstantial. It’s phantom, hypothetical.


28 posted on 03/30/2012 7:00:44 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; mickie; flaglady47
Ruth Buzzi Bader-Meinhof (look it up) Ginsburg is the only one that can recuse herself.

It's my opinion that the conservative justices know they have Kennedy's vote....and choose not to challenge Ginsburg on ethical grounds at this time. Why argue with success?

Approaching 80, Bader-Meinhof is the oldest Justice on the Court. She's undergone surgery for pancreatic surgery and probably will resign after the November election, so why give her the personal pleasure of recusal publicity if they don't have to. She's best ignored as the inept nebbish she is.

(Gee, I hope I'm correct on my assessment that the votes are in the bag, shudder, shudder. But I'd lay book that they are).

Leni

29 posted on 03/30/2012 7:09:46 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I would imagine the states have not had much choice along the way. It seems the Federal monster has gradually taken the power away, with the help of the judiciary at all levels. Yes, some blame goes to the states, but the power was largely taken by force.


30 posted on 03/30/2012 7:11:21 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Once the states take money from the federal government, they have to dance to the fed’s tune. This is how the federal government has got its talons into everything from education, to land management, to industry regulation, to, well, everything.

Public schools used to be exclusively run by the individual states, districts, and counties - now an ever-growing part of what happens in public schools is driven by the agenda the federal government has on tap - and it’s only going to get worse.


31 posted on 03/30/2012 7:15:34 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lets Roll NOW
How about we go back to that for a change.

Why should they, when you have at least 1 SC Justice on the record telling a foreign country to not use our Constitution as a model for theirs, because it is flawed?

32 posted on 03/30/2012 7:29:43 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The States never agreed to the expansive application of the Commerce Clause. That's not what the Commerce Clause was intended or understood to be when the Constitution was ratified.

He's blaming the States for what Congress has done, and the USSC was complicit in.

33 posted on 03/30/2012 7:32:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“increased reliance on the federal government for money”
If this federal money as they call it. Is collected in their state. Do not they have a right to some of it? Leftist aka progressives think tax dollars are they governments. Not the taxpayer.


34 posted on 03/30/2012 7:35:18 AM PDT by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DMG2FUN

this is not a good line of questioning for tossing obamacare.

If you accept federal money once you give up EVERYTHING?


35 posted on 03/30/2012 7:42:48 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: All

I think the Civil War had a little something to do with states losing their sovereignty.


36 posted on 03/30/2012 7:44:45 AM PDT by Valentine Michael Smith (Sic Transit Gloria Mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

There’s a big problem in that the states did give up a lot of their power via both the 17th Amendment and the craven greed of accepting federal funds (with all of the attached strings).

HOWEVER.

This is utterly irrelevant with regard to the clearly unconstitutional insurance mandate, in which the federal government seeks to compel private citizens to purchase a product from a private party. The federal government does not have that power ANYWHERE in the Constitution, and taking off on a tangent about the states is destructive toward the end of reigning in the feds. Roberts should concentrate on THAT.

Further, once the mandate is tossed out for being well beyond the power of the feds, the rest of the law MUST be tossed out - because there was no severability clause. Even forgetting the fact that Congress knows damned well how to insert a severability clause into any law (and, thus, by not putting it there that evidences its intention), you have the FACT that the House version of this law included such a clause - but the Senate version and, more importantly, the version approved by Congress and signed by Obomination lacked such a clause. That is CLEAR evidence to me that Congress clearly intended to have the entire law flushed down the toilet if so much as a single clause of the law was later ruled to be unconstitutional.

Toss the mandate and toss the law, Roberts. Do your damned job.

As for the states, if they had any brains they’d start a petition for a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of repealing the 17th Amendment. Once 35 or 36 states sign on, Congress will act to pass such an amendment and then 38 states can ratify it, obviating the need for a CC and, more importantly, repealing that piece of statist trash that is the 17th Amendment.

It is long past time for the states and the people to reign in the power of the dictatorial feds.


37 posted on 03/30/2012 7:47:55 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“If you accept federal money once you give up EVERYTHING?”
No you do not. Only leftist aka progressive think that way. They feel they can threaten states into compliance with their agenda by withholding tax dollars collected in the state. Ocare is wrong because it forces people to purchase a product. Simply to lower the cost of the product for others. And that never works.


38 posted on 03/30/2012 8:02:00 AM PDT by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
I hope they don't use that as an excuse to compromise even more sovereignty.

The federal government is buying our own country out from under us - with our money.
We should use this as a lesson in what will happen when countries hand over more and more of the decision making process to the UN.

I want more states to say no thanks to federal money.
After all, it comes from people in other states as well as your own.
Better to have the states compete for being the best place to live and work rather than who gets most federal cash.

39 posted on 03/30/2012 8:02:52 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The third plank was the Reserve which enabled a USG/banker cartel to entice the states, the people and in fact, most of the world a free ride into servitude, on the beast.

pgyanke#8: 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.

Paine in the Neck #9: 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.

Only above items which were done via USC are binding, since the only way to change the supreme law is via amendment; those amendments needs be removed. The states acceptance of bribery and coersive moneys from USG is not binding, but a side effect of those broken amendments. The Reserve is not binding and anything buy coin/species is un-USC, therefore it required an amendment.

USG is and has been a criminal organization for some time.

Crime: 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it ... 2. Unlawful activity

...in relation to the Reserves _money_ VS USC. USCongress in regards to law requiring a budget. Thousands if not millions of further acts against the law on an ongoing and escalating manner.

40 posted on 03/30/2012 8:06:30 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“The people of the states have voluntary given up their sovereignty.”

I thought that got settled in 1865.

Or did it?

There’s only one way we’ll find the answer to that question.

Same way as in 1861....


41 posted on 03/30/2012 8:11:16 AM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

Toss in Income Taxes and the stage was set for a federal power grab.


42 posted on 03/30/2012 8:12:24 AM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Valentine Michael Smith
I think the Civil War had a little something to do with states losing their sovereignty.

That and the separation of church and state decision (1948). Once the court started reordering society, they just couldn't stop themselves. Soon to follow: compulsory busing, distribution of birth control to the unmarried, legal abortion, etc etc.

43 posted on 03/30/2012 8:15:58 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Real men are not threatened by strong women." -- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The people political scum of the states have voluntary given up their sovereignty.
44 posted on 03/30/2012 8:16:36 AM PDT by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
They ex parte met with, and bowed before an undocumented, if not foreign, litigant on a case before them...

I will never forget how Roberts faced Obama at the swearing-in and flubbed the wording. Guilty conscience?

45 posted on 03/30/2012 8:19:39 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Real men are not threatened by strong women." -- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
" this is not a good line of questioning for tossing obamacare.
If you accept federal money once you give up EVERYTHING?"
the fools...if it goes for public freedoms, then what private liberties?...oh $h!t.

46 posted on 03/30/2012 8:21:04 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Kill all the terrorists, protect all the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

What exactly do you mean that 38 states can throw out Congress, President, and Supreme Court? I know that 3/4 of the states, or 38 states, can ratify constitutional amendments, or call a constitutional convention. Is that what you have in mind, either amendments limiting their power, or a new constitution?


47 posted on 03/30/2012 8:24:02 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Is John Roberts taking the position that it’s too late to stop ObamaCare because we’ve sold out so long it’s precedent?

Oh God, please NOT that... I don’t want to be forced to buy a Volt ... I don’t want to be forced to buy ‘racial sensitivity’ classes....


48 posted on 03/30/2012 8:28:05 AM PDT by GOPJ (Democrat-Media Complex - buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Those on the FR who brag about how they will never vote for Mitt Romney and would rather have Obama need to think long and hard about the next two appointments to the Supreme Court. If Obama makes those appointments it is game over for the Republic.


49 posted on 03/30/2012 8:33:12 AM PDT by azcap (Who is John Galt ? www.conservativeshirts.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azcap

What makes you think Romney’s appoinments will be any better, certainly in light of his performance in Massachusetts?


50 posted on 03/30/2012 8:35:28 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 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