I hope Pam is right but I am less optimistic.
The history of the Supreme Court has been to support the increasing reach and power of the federal government, and ignore constitutional limits on federal power.
The prevailing court stance on the “commerce clause” places no practical limits at all on federal government over-reach.
When the Supreme Court decided the federal government has the power to dictate how much wheat you may grow on your own farm for local, itra-state, consumption because it affects inter-state commerce they abandoned any pretense of being a fair arbiter of constitutionality to become cheerleaders for the expansion of federal powers.
A related issue could be the matter of Obamacare forcing people to buy private insurance. This would seemingly violate a basic principle of contract law. I have no legal training but do know that a contract is a mutual agreement between two parties.
“I hope Pam is right but I am less optimistic.
The history of the Supreme Court has been to support the increasing reach and power of the federal government, and ignore constitutional limits on federal power”
Right you are.
Just look what they did with the Kelo decision.
No way to predict at this point. But one factor working in our favor (and it has nothing to do with law and much to do with emotions) is the nose-rubbing that the Obama administration has given to the conservative members of the Court. Perhaps, just perhaps, they have enough dander worked up to “push back”.
As important as the Obamacare decision will be, there is another issue coming down the pike that has the potential to become “the decision of the century”, perhaps as was the Dredd Scott decision for the nineteenth century. It may be years away yet, but it will be the Court’s opinion on whether “National Popular Vote” (the movement by which states will collude to circumvent the Electoral College) is ruled to be Constitutional or not....
That’s the decision that may indeed kindle the next “secession”....