“...by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
Someone help me out here...aren’t we a republic?
The constitutionality of a law depends upon how "strong" the majority was that passed it.
I wish the Supremes would sink Obamacare, but I have my doubts. Still, a good bi*ch slapping of Obama by the Supremes (legally of course) would be sweet.
At this point, there is no one willing to stand up against this dictator wannabe. Congress is useless. I hope the SC will do what is right.
Murtha ramrodded it down our throat with an audible vote, and he committed TREASON at that!
Three pages. But very interesting. Thanks!
Excellent article and 100% spot on!
I would not bet the farm that they will. In fact, if I was a betting man,I would bet that they find some excuse to uphold it.
How about the fact that the 2,700 pages were all patched together from various authors and also empowers the HHS to write the rules as they go?
Strike it down en tot and force those CongressCritters to bring it to the floor again, sans individual mandate, if they dare.
cUZ THERY’RE NOT GOING TO READ 2700 PAGES.
That’s how “Democratic Socialists” see things,........The MOB RULES!
The article contains some very pretty, very well-informed reasoning.
Too bad the left-wingers on the Court don’t care a fig for reasoning, no matter how well-informed or elegant. They care for power and payback. Nothing else matters.
I wonder if they’ll even make an effort to explain their votes.
ONE vote is a 'strong majority'?
And they didn't even go through the reconcilliation process between the House and the Senate because it WOULD NOT have made it through
I am putting the chances at 50/50 on whether they would strike the whole Obamcare down or upheld it. I do not put a lot of trust in what happened during the oral arguments because asking a tough question by a judge regarding Obamacare does not mean that this judge is going to overturn it.
I can’t help but thing that this whole thing was planned. Ramming the law through in the dead of night, 2700 pages of regulations that nobody even read, and for me the kicker is that things weren’t supposed to really kick in until after the election. To me this doesn’t sound like a “law” this sounds like a charade - pass the thing with one vote in the dead of night, then have the SC strike it down, and then run on the issue in 2012. While convoluted, to me, it’s not *that* convoluted.
“Look we gave you healthcare but the evil SC just took it away. Vote for me”.
Finally, I’ll probably get flamed for this - but - the few provisions of the law that *DID* kick in right away (which I would argue were the only provisions that were really meant for consumption) are not all that bad - like incentivising adoption of electronic medical records, incentivising quality care with ACO’s and reforms that really do make a good deal of sense (at least to me).
Best article I’ve read explaining why it is unconstitutional.
The author's still only sure about five of the justices, and if he's wrong about any one of them, then his thesis sinks.
I still don't know why the most powerful argument against Obamacare doesn't rely upon the equal protection statutes. It is clearly not a "mandate" when waivers of all kinds have been provided to both individuals and legal collectives. The issuance of a waiver means that if I don't get a waiver, then I'm being "singled out" in the law, thus violating not only the stated reasoning behind the mandate, but clearly giving me, or anyone not given a waiver, standing to sue under equal protection.
Obamacare's "mandate" implicitly discriminates against persons not provided a waiver.
Anyone out there a constitutional lawyer?