Skip to comments.Supreme Court should give Congress a do-over on health care reform
Posted on 04/08/2012 6:00:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Last week, President Barack Obama laid down a marker to the Supreme Court: Invalidate the health care law, and the court itself will become an issue in the election.
Its impossible to make any sense of this. Overturning a statute is unprecedented? Obama supposedly taught constitutional law, yet there he was, speaking as if hed never heard of judicial review practiced by American courts for more than two centuries while pretending that a bill that barely escaped a Senate filibuster and passed the House by a mere seven votes had drawn a strong majority.
The next day, he acknowledged the power of the court to invalidate a statute, but in an odd way the whole episode seemed to fit with his tooth-fairy energy policy, with all its non-existent green jobs and now-bankrupt solar companies. The man seems to waft in and out of reality at will.
In the last couple of weeks the tone from the left has become desperate. From the beginning, supporters of Obamacare assumed they had the law on their side. Dont worry, the personal mandate is well within the power of Congress proper regulation of interstate commerce and all that.
But the Supreme Court didnt get the memo and the stern treatment of the governments case came as a shock.
Obamacare seems a dead end, entitlement liberalisms bridge too far a flawed attempt to impose central planning on an enormously complicated economic sector. If its not invalidated by the court or repealed by Congress, the law will collapse of its own weight, brought down by its exorbitant cost and persistent unpopularity. Heres hoping the court lets Congress have a do-over.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
I will certainly do so.
We should get a do-over on electing the doofuses that occupy Congress and the White House.
I think we should give inventors “do-overs” for inventing perpetual motion machines for energy generation.
Both concepts have equal prospects for success.
I stand corrected.
Although i must reiterate my point that who win’s the presidency is of little signicant to our long term goals. The presidency cannot and will not seriously help us.
The Federal executive perhaps more than all Federal departments is an office that must be constrained externally to have any real lasting impact upon the centralization of power so nessary for the leftist agenda.
The best thing any man can do in the presidency is to act incompletely as to give more of our countrymen a reason to help us resist and constrain his office. I’m not sure Mitt can do that as well as Obama, but Mitts other virtues might be worthy of the trade. In either case the contest for that office itself matters little to our ultimate objective.
Our real Goal henges upon State’s rights activist control of our State Leglsators & governorship. It is from that position that power Must be retaken from Washington as it is from that position that it must be held and that position where power can be checked by the individual(vote by foot). that is the aklees heel of Socialist/collectivist plots, ultimately they must be able to enslave the entire population by dividing them into minority’s to be conquered.
If a minority can simply leave, he cannot be conquered, his labor cannot be so easily taken for “the common good” as the leftist politicians define it.
While our State’s taxing powers are in general legally less limited than Washington’s. Practically they are limited by competition with each other for what amounts to the productive individual. The John Galt’s of our world. That competition, as in the private sector, is our greatest natural defense of our liberty.
We must focus all our efforts upon restoring it, all other objectives are secondary, because without that defense mechanistic of competition we have and will continue to lose the war for our freedom.