Skip to comments.Chris Matthews: Iím pretty surprised to learn that the mandate might be unconstitutional
Posted on 03/30/2012 6:52:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Newsbusters and Ace, who points to Karl’s piece in the Greenroom as a reminder that our very open-minded friends on the left have a little echo-chamber problem of their own. Says Jay Cost:
The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.
I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldnt that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) good and welfare clause to justify the mandate.
Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagans attitude: its a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?
Fair points all, but look: Even I was surprised at how hostile the conservatives on the Court seemed to be towards the mandate. That’s not because I’m reading back issues of The Nation, it’s because the painful fact remains that the Supremes almost always let Congress do any ol’ thing it wants when it comes to regulating commerce. Remember the terrible, terrible Raich case? That wasn’t the Warren Court and it wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 2005 and it went 6-3 thanks to — ta da — Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. It came fully 10 years after the landmark Lopez case, which was supposed to herald some new golden age of limits on the Commerce Clause but hasn’t borne much fruit yet. Maybe ObamaCare is where it’ll pay off, or maybe Scalia’s point during oral arguments that “commerce” doesn’t include people who haven’t yet bought insurance will save the day. But it’s not pure leftist hallucination to think that 70 years of the Court letting Congress run wild with economic regulation might lead to them rubber-stamping the mandate too. Remember, even a conservative judicial eminence like Laurence Silberman upheld the mandate at the appellate level. I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion. Can’t blame the left for being surprised that the Commerce Clause suddenly exists. Although you can, of course, blame them for dismissing conservative legal objections to the mandate simply because they’re conservative. That’ll never change — their sense of infallible intellectual superiority is too precious to them. But it’s fun to see it shaken.
In the crazy world of lefties, making a contract to kill an unborn (or for Obama, new-born) baby is part of the right to privacy that’s somewhere in the Constitution, but having every detail of your medical history in a centralized government database that you must participate in is not covered by this right to privacy.
Rush is right. These people are complete idiots.
Many of us have been saying that even before the bill was passed. He just proved that he doesn’t listen at all to conservative arguments.
They speak only amongst themselves and have no idea what the real world is like. They see themselves as the smartest people in the room, which is very easy to do, since they are the only people in the room................
“The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged”
Chrissy mathews has the intellect of a flea and no amount of interaction with conservatives would be likely to change that.
I’m pretty suprised to find out that Mr. Matthews is capable of “learning”.
I would be pretty surprised to find out chris had half a brain in his head.
That’s right Chris. If you poked your head out of Obama’s zipper once in awhile and took a look around, you might learn some things.
If they uphold the mandate, I don’t really see much point on posting on political sites any more. That war will be lost. The mandate is a clear cut case of an attempt at totalitarian control of the people. If it succeeds, we’re done. All that is left to do is get a fiddle, to give yourself something to do while Rome burns.
And burn it will. History is clear.
The silly thing...if they had just flipped the order......ie instead of ordering you to buy it or you get a fine....they tax you first (the fine part) then give you a deduction if you buy....it would fly...it would still suck but it would fly
Chrissy: “I’m pretty surprised to find out that I’m a moron. I had no idea my IQ was below 70. Apparently I’m barely able to function according to the doctors! Boy, was I surprised!” (Drool, drool!)
I still do not understand why Obama accelerated this to the SC before the election rather than stall until after the election. A decision striking down Obamacare will only hurt his reelection efforts as well as those of Congressional Dems. I do not care how the Dems try to spin it as inconsequential, It will be a major blow. I guess Obama’s arrogance that he would prevail is in line with Chris Matthews
I’m not certain about that: it would still be a capitation tax.
The cultural/political divide in this country is as great as it was just before the Civil War.
Pauline Kael...movie critic for the NEW YORKER famously said after the Nixon landslide in 1972...”I don’t understand it, I don’t know a single person who voted for him”.
These people just don’t get it. They see the Constitution as something to get around...to allow their projects to become “law”.
They consider our point of view as illegitimate. It can’t even be discussed, except briefly, to be dismissed.
Thank God for the SCOTUS.
I'm with you - it seems 'liberalism' is all attitude and 'fashion' - there isn't any deep thought involved... they're complete idiots.
Most dems are well aware of how blatantly unconstitutional this legislation is. The are just putting on this shocked act so they can pretent this is some type of abnormal, extremist ruling if Obamacare goes down in flames. Obama want to run against the Supreme Court.
"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument."
"[The States] alone being parties to the [Federal] compact... [are] solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party but merely the creation of the compact and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified."
"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its powers; but... as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."