Posted on 03/26/2010 7:46:59 PM PDT by RobinMasters
President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.
"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
2018! The only option then is to DEFUND via the House after the 2010 elections if they are not rigged.
That is the most compact, concise statement of the current reality that I've seen since this boondoggle began. I've been saying much the same thing, but with far too many words.
Are you sure it can fast track? I know VA AG’s case is on a ricket docket, The one in N FL too? McCollum filed in Pensacola which is very conseravtive area. Napolitano is saying 2018 because stuff does not kick in until 2014!
VA AG Ken Cuccinelli’s case is also on a rocket docket in N VA district. Do you know from legfal training we can get expressed by asking for a prelim injunction - I know in civil cases this happens.
Any legal beagles here?
I echo that sentiment!
” If they do this before the GOP takes back one of the houses of Congress, Obama and Pelosi and Reid will stack the Court. “
Senate’s the only one that counts. If we stand firm, we have 41 votes there to block it.
Wouldn’t the new law have to be put on hold, so to speak, while it is being considered?
When a law is being contested in the courts, is a stay automatic or does a judge issue one at his discretion?
Obama’s a totalitarian national socialist, i.e., a Nazi. Let’s tell it like it is.
I wish I knew. I would think the injuction woul d stay (put on hold) the law. I would think if the stay (hold) was denied they could appeal it. I think the next court is the court of appeals then SCOTUS but I could be wrong.
Napolitano is a very smart man . . . he know of what he speaks. I actually am of the opinion that the decision, when rendered, will be better than 5-4 — I predict a 7-2 decision in favor of the plaintiffs. I only wish the entire judicial proceedings could be fast-tracked!
To the great Mr. Hussein oBama and twitSpeeker Pelosi they must realize that in China, this reversal is called "FACE"!
Don't even think of blamin' me. I wouldn't have voted for that CHUMP if you paid me. And that TWIT Pelosi should be fired on the spot.
on anothher topic, Laura Ingram rules. She's just fantastic.
Thanks.
Exactly right, o_zarkman44.
I don’t have the information facts but only know from comments by people in the know that it will be expressed.
I did not see Napolitano say 2018 but I scanned quickly and may have missed it. 2018 is too far in the future. Game will be over if Obamacare allowed to infect for that amount of time.
What goes along with states rights is a question, if we can not buy insurance over states line, how do they now tell us we are to join a nationwide medical care program, the two don’t fit.
Game over by the end of this year if do not stop this. I wish I could hear it from McCollum or Cuccinelli on how fast this might move.
obumpa
I have to disagree. There are these nine. Then there are the governments of the 50 states. And then as a last line of defense there are the citizens themselves.
Repeat these words from Jefferson on the Alien and Sedition acts “Void and of No effect”.
Course you’re also assuming that we have not already crossed over into tyranny. Where I believe we have. The government has unshackled itself from the rule of law is now the outlaw, the rebel against the constitution.
The states do not compel you to buy automobile insurance just for the act of owning a car. They are compelling us to buy health insurance because we breathe.
I can buy a car and drop the insurance as soon as I park it in my driveway. I can leave it there, uninsured forever. When I choose to use it as a means of transportation, then I am compelled to buy automobile insurance.
I have no choice with the health insurance mandate as there are no viable alternatives to breathing.
There's a quote from JFK that goes something like: "Those who would prevent peaceful evolution guarantee violent revolution."
The questions that the construction of Obamacare raise, are clearly constitutional in nature, and cannot be ignored by the Supreme Court. If they should abdicate their responsibility to rule on the constitutional merits of this legislation, they will demolish the legitimacy of one of the three branches of government.
And, in so doing, they will leave The People no choice, but to exercise what power they have over their government, with what means are available to them.
I meant the Federal government is compelling the healthcare insurance, not the states. (Late & tired)
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.