Joe Biden Vows to Expand Obamacare After Supreme Court Decision

breitbart ^ | 06/17/2021 | Charlie Spiering

[Starboard]

Biden is such a idiot that he has no understanding of the merit of the ruling.

*************

Since when do constitutional constraints, legal principles or merit matter? We are way beyond those relics from our former republic.

[Starboard]

They want big, intrusive government as much as the dems do,

************

That is a FACT. Big government is THE platform they are using to destroy the republic.

[PMAS]

They had a plan, was passed through House of Reps and then Jon McCain was the deciding NO vote that killed it in the Senate

[SFRigger]

Just so he could stick a thumb in PDJT’s eye.

[Mr. K]

This decision was only about who had standing to bring this lawsuit

[Richard Axtell]

“Expanding Obamacare” means outlawing any alternative medical coverage or systems. It means total government control of all health care. It means health care rationing, and a dramatic decline in availability and quality, while costs skyrocket, and taxes become ridiculously burdensome. Biden promises something that never works, state run health care.

[Boogieman]

“They did not make a decision on whether or not ‘obamacare’ is Constitutional.”

Since they’ve basically told us that nobody has standing to challenge it, it amounts to the same as saying it will never be ruled unconstitutional.

[fruser1]

No standing in the case.

So who does have standing?

Guatemalans?

[Boogieman]

Yes, and the apparent answer is: nobody has standing, because they simply don’t want to hear the case.

[Alberta's Child]

Insurance companies basically wrote the Affordable Care Act themselves. Why would they sue to overturn it?

[Amendment10]

"As I understand it, the SCOTUS ‘decision’ was to not take the case based on lack of standing on the part of those bringing suit. They did not make a decision on whether or not ‘obamacare’ is Constitutional."

Thank you for posting hanamizu.

If the following thread is talking about the same case, those who “lacked standing” seem to be GOP lawmakers!

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge (6.17.21)

Not only are there major constitutional problems with Obamacare imo, but also serious doubts about the integrity of the Roberts Court too imo.

The reason that unconstitutional Obamacare made it through the system is this imo. Constitutionally low-information voters aren't taking responsibility for their 17th Amendment (17A) power to elect senators, which is the main reason that 17A should never have been ratified imo. (The question is, how many Brooklyn Bridges have low-information voters “bought” from the feds with their 17A powers.)

More specifically, corrupt senate candidates promise low-information voters things like national healthcare to get themselves elected. But since low-information voters are not being taught about the federal government's constitutional limited powers, the problem is that voters elect crook lawmakers that steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers to fulfill their unconstitutional campaign promises for federal spending programs. By doing so, lawmakers wrongly establish things like national healthcare, for example, that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to touch.

In other words, unthinking abuse of 17A powers is effectively not only nullifying 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty, but also making it easy for crook federal lawmakers to ignore the Constitution's Article V to petition the states for new powers.

From the thread referenced above, …

Whatever post-FDR era law schools are teaching students, it’s evidently not the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had intended for those powers to be understood.

In this case the misguided Roberts Court has once again ignored that the question of the constitutionality of national healthcare is not a new test for the Court.

Regarding unconstitutional (imo) Obamacare, the founders made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence on things like healthcare means that the states reserved the power to tax and spend for public healthcare uniquely to themselves, not the federal government.

• "10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

In fact, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had mentioned national healthcare in case opinions as an example of a power that the states have not expressly constitutionally given to Congress.

Regarding the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the following list, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court had clarified that the feds have no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance regardless if an insurance policy is negotiated across state borders. (FDR's activist justices overturned Paul v. Virginia.)

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.

• ”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

• “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

And if RINOs were to start reading FR, they could get institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices up to speed with major constitutional problems with Obamacare, not that they would actually be willing to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution as their voters expect them to do. (Had possibly pro-Obamacare RINOs hoped that the Court would pull the "no standing" card on their Obamacare case?)

The remedy for the corrupt, unconstitutionally big, post-17th Amendment ratification federal government that is oppressing patriots under its boots…

Patriots need to primary federal and state candidates who don’t clearly promise to help put the federal government back into its constitutionally limited power "cage.”

[Alberta's Child]

They had a plan, was passed through House of Reps and then Jon McCain was the deciding NO vote that killed it in the Senate.

They didn't have a plan. As I remember it, their "Repeal and Replace" bill was about 95% identical to the original Affordable Care Act.

Politically, the GOP has done an awful job playing this whole issue since 2010.

Americans want health care they can't afford. They're delusional. Nobody can give it to them. That's why the ACA is illustrated by the monstrosity shown below. The only way to give people "affordable health care" is to make it super-expensive for everyone and hide the costs all over the place so that most people think they're getting a good deal.

[Alberta's Child]

Since they’ve basically told us that nobody has standing to challenge it, it amounts to the same as saying it will never be ruled unconstitutional.

That's not what they said.

Some provisions of ObamaCare have already been overturned in separate legal challenges -- like the Hobby Lobby case, for example.

The best course of action for a widespread challenge to the constitutionality of ObamaCare would come from state insurance commissioners and private insurers who want to sell plans that aren't ObamaCare-compliant. Ask yourself why this type of challenge has never been made.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I couldn’t agree more.

[griswold3]

They tried and John McCain screwed them over again like the good Democrat he was.
If they. (Rs) ever get Executive Branch, 60 senate seats and the House whoa unto the “ Progressives”.

[Quickgun]

This is correct. Since the penalties for not having insurance were removed, there was no damage to rule on is what I read into it. Biden has just tried to spin a nothing burger into his favor. The court rules narrowly, and that is nearly always better...IMHO..

[Mr. N. Wolfe]

“If they. (Rs) ever get Executive Branch, 60 senate seats and the House whoa unto the “ Progressives”.”

Sarcasm?