Posted on 12/13/2010 1:15:06 PM PST by pissant
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement after a federal judge ruled that the individual mandate in President Obama's health care takeover bill "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
"Today's decision makes it clear that President Obama and Democrats overreached and violated the Constitution in their rush to pass a federal takeover of our health care system. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made a compelling case that Obamacare violated the constitutional rights of Americans by forcing them into a government program against their will.
"The Constitution neither grants Congress nor the President the power to compel every American to buy government-approved health insurance. The unconstitutional individual mandate is the centerpiece of the health care takeover and today's ruling should signal the beginning of the end for Obamacare. Congress must listen to the American people and fully repeal Obamacare immediately. Then we can move to real solutions that make health care more affordable and increase choices that keep patients in control over their own care."
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
Bzzzzt, wrong. It decided what the law should be.
Roe v Wade claimed that laws against abortion laws were unconstitutional because such laws weren't fair to women's privacy issues. It reflects your mindset exactly.
Social security is unconstitutional, troll.
> “ It reflects your mindset exactly.”
.
No, it reflects the opposite!
Nothing in the constitution gives the court or the congress the power to address “privacy” in any way.
In this case we have the court correctly recognizing that congress has legislated in an area forbidden to it by the limitations of the nineth and tenth ammendments.
Thus it is a perfect inverse of the Roe usurpation.
Then repeal it. Let's ask Jim DeMint to introduce the legislation.
Think he will?
Roe v. Wade was NOT an act of Congress, it was an act of judicial legislation by the Supreme Court. That's what you advocate.
Bush tried. Doubt Boneyard or DeMint have the stones
I hope you'll join me by signing your name and encouraging your friends to do so as well"
They're the ones who are supposed to make the law, according to the Constitution. In any case, Roberts and Scalia aren't any more likely to change the Social Security laws.
Social Security is a tax. Not a premium, nor a fine, which Obamacare is.
Is that correct?
> “ it was an act of judicial legislation by the Supreme Court. That’s what you advocate”
.
No, that is not what I or anyone here advocates, nor what was done YOU FILTHY MARXIST LIAR!
.
Jim, when are you going to zot this invader from out side America?
.
Highlights From the Ruling:
“A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”
* * *
“[S]everal operative elements are commonly challenged in Commerce Clause decisions. First, to survive a constitutional challenge, the subject matter must be economic in nature and affect interstate commerce, and second, it must involve activity. ... In her argument, the Secretary [of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius] urges an expansive interpretation of the concept of activity. She posits that every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime, if not today, perhaps even next week or next year... This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”
* * *
“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
* * *
“This Court is . . . unpersuaded that [the individual mandate] is a bona fide revenue-raising measure enacted under the taxing power of Congress. . . . No plausible argument can be made that it has ‘the purpose of supporting the Government.’”
* * *
“Importantly, it is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue — it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance. An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application.”
* * *
“Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.”
* * *
“The shift in terminology during the final hours preceding an extremely close floor vote undermines the contention that the terms ‘penalty’ and ‘tax’ are synonymous.”
* * *
A great first step and all of the above would apply to social security and medicare and any other unconstitutional program that force federal mandates on persons or states, ie, tyranny.
Now maybe you’re beginning to see the purpose of Free Republic and the tea party. To vote out the corrupt bastards and weak-kneed RINOS and elect no-nonsense constitutional conservatives to restore the constitution and our Liberty!
BZZZT...the choice is clearly wrong and is also a display of arbitrary power, in which case the discretion does not belong to Congress.
Congress may not enact unconstitutional laws. It is the argument of conservatives like Jim DeMint and Mark Levin that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Thanks for playing, Johnny Screenname. LOL.
People who do not purchase a home with a mortgage pay more income taxes than those who don't. The judge's thorough survey wasn't very thorough.
“This Court is . . . unpersuaded that [the individual mandate] is a bona fide revenue-raising measure
Unpersuaded? Bona fide? Give that man a crown!
And it's insurance at the same time.
It's the fruit of judicial activism, which you're endorsing.
If you think it's unconstitutional, ask your congressional representatives to repeal it.
"We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional." -- Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
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.