Court To Hear Obamacare Challenge: What It Means
It’s official. The Supreme Court will consider challenges to Obamacare stemming from the Eleventh Circuit decision striking down the law’s individual mandate.
In that case, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) partially won their suit, claiming that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be voided as unconstitutional. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the mandate — considered by many to be the linchpin of the overhaul of the U.S. health system — was unconstitutional. But the court declined to strike down the law in its entirety.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on a number of issues raised in the suit: severability, Medicaid, and the Anti-Injunction Act, to name a few. Specifically, it will hear arguments on whether Congress “had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.”
The Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether the Anti-Injunction Act (which bars suits to stop a tax before it has been imposed) bars NFIB’s and the states’ challenges to the PPACA’s minimum coverage provision.
The Court will also hear arguments on whether the individual mandate provision is severable from the rest of the PPACA. The parties will address whether the law “must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable” and whether the mandate “exceed[s] Congress’s enumerated powers.”
Last, the Court will hear from the states’ petition whether Congress exceeds its enumerated powers and federalism generally by “coerc[ing] States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under [Medicaid].”
By our count, the oral argument will be at least four and one-half hours long — a record time — and argued by an “all-star” lineup of Supreme Court litigators. A typical Supreme Court argument is one hour. The Court has rarely extended oral argument longer than two hours, but has done so in important cases such as the 2003 challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Court has not set a date for argument, but it could be as early as this March.
The Court’s term is set to end on June 25, and the Court would usually announce all its decisions for the term by then. Occasionally the Court has extended its term or ordered reargument (as in Citizens United v. FEC).
We are likely to get a decision by June 25 — right in time for the final months of the political battle for the November election.
Most likely the supremes will protect their sorry state in life and rule that congress can enanct any damm law they want to. I would say that Vegas would put a 70% probability on this so don’t get your hopes up. Is this right? Is this really within their power? Morel likely is it possible that the courts have allowed such an encroachment on our freedoms thus far that they are “in for a penny and now in for a pound?”
The people of the USA need to stand up on this one or it may be our last chance. Even if these so called judges rule in favor of this law which is likely the worst pile of dung ever written, we need to rise up in 2012 and begin the purge to take back our government from these meddlesome control freaks. This law is a vast intrusion on our freedom and will also bankrupt us beyond belief. How do we know? Just look at social security, medicare, medicaid, and how our illustrious government manages most of their responsibilities.
Sooooo whoever is our next President needs to be tough as nails and unwavering because the whole big government establishment including the lib media will fight us each step of the way. This law needs to be ripped out by the roots, gutted, and the carcass burned, with the ashes scattered to the four corners of the earth. That is what it will take to truly get rid of it. Thanks to Obama,, Peolosi, Reid and all teh democratic scum bags.
The surpremes will likely be a bunch of chickens in the face of a need for real courage–the people need to speak!!
I see blood shed profusely in the future of this country. The vote needs to be restricted to those who pay taxes and away from those who stand to benefit from a particular law. Otherwise they will continue to bankrupt the country and eventually we will begin our second revolution. I learned in my history classes long ago that the first revolution was fought and won by a fairly small minority of people. The majority were happy with their chains under King George III. Many seem happy under theirs now.
It’s hard to find anybody in the U.S. who does not “benefit from a particular law.” Anybody who takes tax deductions on Schedule A, anybody who flies in a jetliner controlled by the Federally authorized air traffic control system, any seniors getting Social Security and Medicare, anybody who buys a new car whose fuel economy and safety features have been mandated by Federal legislation, etc.
Perhaps there are a few survivalists out there in the badlands who live like hermits. But other than them, we’re all influenced by Federal legislation in one way or another.
The problem is not that everybody benefits to some minor degree,
but that some survive only by receiving payments from the State,
and the State is bankrupt.
Amen! Very astute look at the problem with or without SCOTUS intervention. Even after the Court ruled on segregation in schools, it took ARMED national guard troops to escort some (most likely very scared) kids to their new schools. Regardless of your opinion on any particular law, on any case decided by the Supreme Court, we all need to realize that being required to do something that costs us money ‘for our own good’ or be PENALIZED in a way that costs us money, is more about taking money away from those who have it than about ‘universal healthcare’. It’s coercion, plain and simple, and I won’t be joining the herd this time, thanks! By the way, we already have several such requirements in law: the auto insurance requirement, the seatbelt and helmet safety laws, states being required to apply specific speed limits or other conditions in order to get federal money for projects which don’t state directly that such conditions are part of the deal. Majorities are usually happy with the status quo. I don’t know where you live, but here, in TX, outside of the big cities (or wanna-be big cities, like Austin, the Capital)most Texans say, hell no!, to being told what to do on ANY topic, ESPECIALLY something that affects your actual body, your person, not just your pocketbook. What if they started ordering gynecological exams for all girls at puberty? Ick! There are groups who refuse to buy insurance for religious reasons (Amish, Mennonites) and those who refuse medical care in its entirety for religious reasons (Christian Scientists, 7th Day Adventists, & others). But the key to this entire issue is that MORE THAN HALF the states disagree with the law, and are willing to take it to the highest court. That means the citizens of 26 states, a majority of those citizens, DON’T agree with this law. So, I have hope that the majority do NOT in fact support the status quo in this case. The MSM would like you to think so, and many people are against it but not interested in doing anything to help stop it. However, I’ve become politically aware for the first time in a big way because of this specific issue. I don’t think I’m the only one. I consider my body off limits to the government. I will not fly because of the security requirements, they are ridiculous, ineffective and seriously invasive and even traumatizing (remember the YouTube video of the little girl getting patted down while her parents helplessly watch? I’d have been in jail for assaulting those people, or would have left the airport without ever getting on a plane! There are other examples, but basically, I believe that the law against slavery means not only ownership of another human being, but also CONTROL over the BODY of another human being, in which case, all laws which dictate the government can force you to take a medication, accept exams whether you want them or not, forcibly medicating mentally ill persons so they can go on trial, etc. are all not only invasions of privacy and decency, and illegal under the Constitution, but also illegal in the category of slavery! I am very glad to see someone else has been studying history! God bless you for it! As many of my history and other teachers and professors have said, “If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes”…deja vu, anyone?!!
Oh Aimee, the auto-insurance “mandate” you cite is a fantasy. It doesn’t exist. There is no federal law that mandates individuals purchase a government-approved auto insurance policy – period. Auto-insurance laws exists as state laws, and there are some states that offer a personal bond alternative to an insurance policy, and still others that do not require a driver to purchase auto insurance at all. For the remainder of states, the purchase of auto insurance is a requirement for exercising the “privilege of driving”; if you don’t choose to drive, you don’t have any obligation whatsoever to meet the state’s requirement to purchase it. States are unconstrained by the Constitution to assume such powers over individuals who choose to drive on public roads, because driving is NOT an “unalienable right”. Driving is a privilege.
Obamacare, on the other hand, “transforms” the individual “Right to Life” into a mere “privilege to live” that is granted by government. The federal government now requires the purchase of a government-approved health insurance plan for an individual who chooses to exercise the “privilege of living”. If you don’t choose to live, by this interpretation of the federal government’s powers, you don’t have any obligation to meet the federal government’s requirement to purchase health insurance.
But the individual “Right to Life” is an “unalienable right” acknowleged in the Declaration, and cannot be demoted to a mere “privilege” that is granted by the federal government. It matters not whether the Court somehow finds a “constitutional” loophole for the law to exist; Obamacare undermines the most fundamental founding principle under which the Constitution was framed: the unalienable right to Life.
…Obamacare is tyranny…
You’ve nailed it — this is exactly the challenge to Obamacare. We will see if the very distilled essence of our country can stand up to what one hopes will be *careful* scrutiny.
Aimee, not only is it horribly disturbing to hear/see what TSA does to kids; what about our elderly, like the woman with cancer (and incontinence) basically flying home to die? Her adult daughter, who had permission to escort/help mother to the gate, was threatened with being arrested because she cried due to her mom’s treatment at their hands.
Last spring my own 83 yr. old dad was humiliated by TSA. He’d just had BOTH knees replaced 4 mos. before our 1800 mile (one way) trip. Of course he set off the alarm, so they damn near dragged him out of line, and wouldn’t let us anywhere we could hear or see him. Then they got nasty because although he’d emptied his pockets, he had a teeny-tiny glass bottle in his shirt pocket that he’d forgotten, but shouldn’t have removed anyway — it was a miniscule nitro pill he carries *always*, because of 2 prev. heart attacks. He’s not doddering or anything but sharp as a tack, however a super-fast pace can bewilder him occasionally. You could see he was embarrassed, and they acted as if he was about to be hauled away by the KGB for extraordinary questioning. I was about 1/8″ away from throwing a fit, and felt so badly for dad.
The day got worse. We were in the very tail of the plane, and were the last ones off (no point trying to rush it, so we didn’t). As we finally stood up and grabbed carry-ons, everyone else had stampeded out already. This was a plane where the door was *between* 1st & economy class, and dad was in front of us. He didn’t know quite what was going on (he’d never flown a plane like this before), so he stopped a moment by the flight crew, who’d all gathered at this door. He had on a cap with “scrambled eggs” on the brim, and one of the actual flight crew (a youngish man) said, “Take ‘er easy, admiral!” Thank God dad’s hearing aids had lost power during the flight and he didn’t hear it. My husband & I did, but were so upset already that if I’d opened my mouth at that point, it would’ve been an ugly scene that could’ve only made things worse still.
The kicker for all this — the reason dad had on a scrambled eggs cap? why he was traveling via air in the first place? He was returning to the ship he’d served on for 3 yrs. during WWII (volunteering & accepted at 17), for its remaining crew reunion, for the ship’s celebration of its “birthday” 70 yrs. ago! Yeah, a real threat to the country. Real deserving of the treatment he recv’d, being thrown to the tender mercies of TSA. Bunch of jumped-up, power-mad functionaries, if you ask me.
It’s starting to be a NOT so fine line between freedom and safety. Who decides which is which, how those words are defined, and how much of what = less of what, in what degree? WHO IS WATCHING THE WATCHERS?! It had better be us, because we’re all that’s left …
If the President, the Senators, and the Representatives took seriously their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, the law could never have been enacted in the first place, and we would not be having this conversation.
It’s madness to think that the Supreme Court has the power to give its imprimatur to a blatantly unconstitutional law and thereby confer Constitutionality upon that law. If a law is unconstitutional, it remains so, no matter who says otherwise.
If Obamacare stands, it will be the end of Federalism as we know it. The Federal government will be able to tell you what insurance you must have, how long you can live, what medications you can have, what operations you can have, what cancer treatments you can have, what cancer screaning tests you can have (and ladies, you can forget mamograms until you’re at least 50 or 55), and what medications you can have (and if they’re too costly, well, sorry bub, you’re out of luck).
We are not only headed for the single-payer system, but the government could tell you what car to buy (a Chevy Volt from Government Motors, I mean GM), how hot or cool you can make your house (energy efficiency to protect the environment, don’t ch’ya know), what type of house you can live in (it had better conform to all energy efficiency guidelines), and of course you will NOT be allowed ANY guns. Also, no smoking, drinking, or anything other than liberal democratic political speak on the radios and Internet (Net neutrality, which is making a comeback, kids).
And this is only part of it. Is THIS the future YOU want for you and your family? Well, even if the court upholds it, if we take back Congress and the White House in 2012 we can start repealing all of this stuff. If not, America will be a very, very, different place under a second Obama administration. That alone should make you come out and vote. Bring some friends, too. Everything is on the line in 2012.
Even the New York Times has admitted in yesterday’s news that the fundamental issue is whether the Commerce Clause implies an unlimited power of the Federal Government to force us into certain economic behaviors that we wouldn’t otherwise choose freely. And that the advocates of ObamaCare are “flummoxed” (the New York Times’ word!) when it comes to replying to that.
If the Federal Government can force me to buy an insurance policy from a private insurer, can the Federal Government also force me to:
1. Buy a GM car instead of a Ford or Honda, to keep GM afloat
2. Buy a membership in Weight Watchers to reduce health care costs (as Charles Krauthammer asked)
3. Buy an electric fan instead of an air conditioner, to reduce energy costs
Up till now, the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate commercial behavior that we freely entered into. But ObamaCare is relying on the Commerce Clause to force us into new behavior (like young people being forced to buy private insurance at their own expense). That’s ominous.
Agreed! I wish we could ‘take back’ Washington BEFORE the end of 2012/beginning of 2013. More damage will be done before anyone elected next year can take office. I personally would prefer to be a hermit on a mountain than allow myself to be controlled by the government. and, by the way, not only will expensive meds be controlled out of existence (unless powerful people hold stock in those meds!) but any controlled substance which relieves pain legally, and any chance at making medical marijuana available in all states will be dead in the water. I take chronic pain medication, and occasionally medication for acute pain. Why? Migraines since age 8. Believe me, after almost 20 years, NOTHING we have available pharmaceutically works for me. Black widow spider, multiple bites, age 16. Due to totally inept and total lack of care, the antivenin was not administered, I hovered at the edge of death for 3 days with no food, no water, nothing to alleviate the horrendous pain. This resulted in nerve damage which grows worse every year and causes excruciating chronic nerve pain, which responds to nothing but narcotics. The DEA is already on a witch hunt for any doctor who prescribes perfectly legal meds for genuine pain. If the healthcare law takes over, you’ll be in pain till the second you die. Unless, of course, you are favored with the patronage of a member of the government! There are so many things at stake, I can’t list them all here. Everyone has a stake in every election, but we owe it to our country and ourselves to take extra care to ‘get out the vote’ on such important and world-changing issues. It’s our power, its what our military has fought for over almost 2 centuries, it’s what we must preserve to pass on to generations who follow!
OMG, Aimee! I’m so sorry to hear about your chronic pain, and the reason for it. I heartily sympathize — again, because of my dad. He left his gloves in the barn, and didn’t check ‘em before putting them on. Although he smushed the black window at the end of a finger, we don’t know how many bites, and he did get the antivenom — but they didn’t know if it would work because it was on the expiration date. Mom rushed him to the hospital in the backseat of the car, where when the pain was SO bad, he snapped off one the solid metal hooks, then proceeded to grind his teeth to the point he snapped off his two upper front ones.
A few yrs. ago I fell in parking lot that had just been opened behind a store, as they were doing constrc. work in the front lot. However, it had NOT been readied or cleaned up. I stumbled on a pc. of junk, and fell into another pc. of junk — a broken beer bottle. It sliced open my shin and my husband ran for the store mgr. After getting his name/comp. insur., we went to the hospital. There the drs. wanted an x-ray, because they were afraid the cut was so deep it had cut the bone (it didn’t, but very dang close). They sewed me up after injecting local anesthetic, and put me on crutches for a week. As they were preparing to discharge me, I asked about getting 10-12 painkillers, for the first night and next few days. The dr. looked at me funny, and slowly said, “Advil or Tylenol will take care of ANY pain you *might* have.” Seriously?!?! Did you think I fell on purpose, ruining my beautiful (yes, still, even now
dancing legs for TEN PILLS?! You x-rayed my leg and put me crutches because it wasn’t that big a deal? My example is much diff. than yours, but how can the body heal itself as fast as it should if it’s spending all its time fighting the pain instead? Yet another instance of how stupid and out-of-hand things have gotten.
Don’t worry folks. You’ll still be able to get that pamphlet ‘Death with Dignity’ and a little pill to go with it. ‘Cures’ all ailments. We are living in tyranny.
The end to federalism began in 1913. ObamaCare is merely a symptom of existing corporatism.
Federalism as the Dounders understood it ended on April 26, 1865.
If SCOTUS upholds SCOAMF (praying they won’t; fearing they might), even if we retake both the White House and the Senate, we do not have a political party that has the will to go forward with a repeal.
They are part of the system that wants to hold on to power. Why on earth would they vote to deny themselves of that power?
They won’t. It’s up to SCOTUS. If they don’t do it, America as it was meant to be and as it has been ceasing to be for nearly 50 years, is over. Ball game.
I think what we’re witnessing is a communist take-over of America that started long ago. A little bit here, a little there, “Welcome, Comrade!”. Hating rich people is par, trashing capitalism- under par. Look, these people are camping in major cities as I type. If I thought we were at the ‘edge’ I might offer a prescription for turning back. Unfortunately, with debt accumulating at the rate it has under O’Blame-o he has put the pedal down and is racing toward a communist finish.
The Idiots (ones who vote Democrat) will not know what hit them when the government collapses the economy in it’s quest for power. If Obama is not thrown-to-the-curb in 2012 everyone should be making other plans for their survival.
Fortunately, Mother Nature and her best friend Free Market don’t play games with communists. She and He will kick their asses as sure as the wind blows. The questions we must ask are: how many will suffer? How many will die? Why should they? To what end? We’ll get the answers when, and if, they take control. Hold on tight and prepare. We’re on a course unfamiliar to Americans but tragically familiar to other peoples. Get Your American On, people, Get Your American On!
I would also like to add that if Obamacare stands – the government can/will also decide whether or not your children can/will be allowed to be born. This thought came to me when I read flyovermark’s post where s/he said, “Obamacare, on the other hand, “transforms” the individual “Right to Life” into a mere “privilege to live” that is granted by government.” If the unborn child has genetic defects or markers that the death panels determine will cost too much (cost-benefit ratio of the child’s life) – the pregnancy will be terminated – the baby killed. Obamacare MUST be overturned…
If the Supremes uphold Obamacare it could lead to the death of the Democrats because right-thinking Americans may decide that they’ve had enough of liberal justices and move, via elections, to ensure that the Supreme Court is filled with conservatives dedicated to interpreting the Constitution as written.
That’s my “silver lining” take on the potential debacle of Obamacare being deemed constitutional.
That said, it might be a good organizing principle for the conservative movement going forward, even if Obamacare is defeated, because, just like rust, the left never sleeps.
Given your hypothesis, I think you might enjoy reading comments on this issue at the Daily Kos. (It’s good for a laugh after a hard day working to help support the clowns who post there.) Interestingly, a significant infestation of them believe that the defeat of Obamacare by the Supremes could lead to the death of the Republican party as the masses rise up to battle capitalism’s social injustice. Yes, these wing nuts actually believe they are the majority.
(In a related matter, should you brave a visit with the Kossacks, be sure to check out their hilarious love-fest diaries about OWS. They have parasites on site who report lovingly from the front lines. )
That’s ironic because the American left never wanted a health care system like ObamaCare in the first place. They never wanted a national health care system that works by forcing us to buy private insurance.
Most of them wanted a single-payer system like Canada’s, paid for by taxation.
And some of them, like Paul Krugman, wanted a British-style NHS system, with private hospitals replaced by government-run clinics.
Their “compromise” was to have ObamaCare with a so-called “public option,” paid by Federal revenues, to compete alongside private insurers (and hopefully drive them out of business eventually).
Obama managed to create a health care system–ObamaCare–that is disliked by both the Left and the Right.
Adding here: today I listened to a liberal pundit conjecture that if the SCOTUS rejecs Obamacare, this will make BHO a “sympathetic figure” thus ensuring relection. It’s scary that we, as citizens of this great country, can see things so differently.
For my part, I think it is rejected, with at least one SCOTUS liberal on board. Obama loses in a landslide (yes landslide) with significant denunciation by white men, Latinos, Jews, young people and some labor.
States like WS, PA, IN, MI, OH, VA, FL, CO etc don’t turn out for BHO…
ADJones, I also find DailyKos quite educational. I’m not brave enough to post there, but I agree it’s an interesting place to visit.
Dana:
No need to ponder further whether or not to post at the Kos — individuals who suggest the historic folly of Marxist ideology are banned almost immediately. There is absolutely no tolerance for opposing thought at the Kos. While they would deny this, you’ll find no conservative dissent in the diary comments. The only debate allowed at all, and that begrudgingly, is over the pace of implementing Statist ideology. All else is self-evidently unworthy of discussion. Indeed, they are proud that they have evolved beyond the need for even an academic consideration of the merits of individlual liberty.
The Kos is an intellectual wasteland of little value other than as a window into the mindlessness of Obama’s base — and admittedly a lot of laughs as they flail about arguing whether George Bush, the “Tea Baggers,” the “RIGHT WING” media (they’re serious), Obama’s centrist tendencies (they’re still serious) or all four are the cause of their Marxist hero’s epic failure. The only unassailable certainty to a Kossack is that the problem is not their ideology.
OWS ain’t all bad. The whole “move your money” thing was actually a great idea (and, BTW, capitalism in action).
Thanks (but no thanks) for your Kos suggestion! I can’t read the junk they put up there. Likewise Democratic Underground and Huffpo. Tried it. Hated it. Won’t try again! Makes me want to puke.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on a number of issues raised in the suit: severability, Medicaid, and the Anti-Injunction Act, to name a few. Specifically, it will hear arguments on whether Congress “had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.”
I hope the SCOTUS gets it clear and irrevocable, since there are apparently going to be 4 decisions within the decision. And that they don’t leave room for (even more) years of murkiness and uncertainty.
If they just shut down the individual mandate and leave the rest intact, I can imagine ongoing legal wrangling into the next century.
As Obama’s Solicitor General, Elena Kagan was more than just a cheerleader for Obamacare, she formulated active, legal rationalizations and justifications.
Tanstaafl, Kagan should be forced to recuse herself in this fight. Take a look at her socialist past at Princeton and tell me how on earth she can render an unbiased opinion. Other than her qualifications as a NYC lesbian bowling ball there’s little to recommend her as an arbiter of the cherished founding documents which have ennobled America since the Christian Founders engendered the documents in 1776.
She was at Harvard!
Exactement, Gipper.
Given the clear cut ideological splits on the court, we could just cut to the chase and ask Anthony Kennedy how he intends to vote.
We’ve invested a great deal of prominence and importance in SCOTUS decisions, but the Founders were as concerned about an overly influential SCOTUS as they were with out-of-control other branches of government.
Michelle Obama has declared herself thrilled with her husband’s “brilliant” (gasp) appointments and certainly hopes he gets to cement the bent of Ginsburg’s seat before he leaves office.
To allow severability in a bill explicitly written to exclude severability would be bad enough. But if the individual mandate is upheld, the Constitutional destruction will be complete, and the consequences cataclysmic.
Many Americans think they’ve already witnessed “crony capitalism” in the saddle. Should the mandate be upheld, far worse will come.
Wholeheartedly agree.
Which is also why I don’t even bother considering a balanced budget amendment worthy of pursuit.
It’s a waste of time to draft any additions to the Constitution since obvious meanings of its provisions magically morph into whatever is necessary to rationalize unconstitutional rulings.
“Many Americans think they’ve already witnessed “crony capitalism” in the saddle. Should the mandate be upheld, far worse will come.” – FWP
What we’ve seen of cronyism is only what we’ve seen and what we haven’t seen is probably worse; but once it’s given an open door, it will be horrendous.
…the fundamental issue is whether the Commerce Clause implies an unlimited power of the Federal Government to force us into certain economic behaviors that we wouldn’t otherwise choose freely.
Prior to passage, govt. lawyers argued that Obamacare’s individual mandate wasn’t a tax. Then, in the FLA case, the main one being considered in the GA appeals court and now the SCOTUS, the govt. tried to argue that the individual mandate was constitutional under Congress’ powers of taxation, which argument the judge, logically enough, didn’t allow. So the govt. is left with the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
Poor little innocent Commerce clause, one simple sentence intended to ensure that commerce was “regular”.
(Insuring regularity (of commerce, of anything) was the original meaning of “regulation”, while the federal gov’t and democrats in particular have raised the notion of regulation to some kind of Holy Grail.)
The Florida judge in what is now the GA appeal case had the best line so far, to the effect that if the govt. can force you to buy a product or service, it can force you to buy anything, including broccoli.
Maybe it’s time for a Constitutional Amendment that defines the true intent of the commerce clause.
Based on what the founders intended, i.e., simply, regulation of commerce between the states.
If it accurately represented the original meaning, such an amendment would be a wonderful thing.
The infamous Kelo decision proves that the Supreme Court does not have the rights of citizens at heart when it comes to government power. The Constitution only means what 5 SC Justices say it means in any given case.
Any of the commenters actually read this legislation? I read all three versions, House, Senate and the final version of mostly corruption and more layers of agency bureaucracy that increase costs. And they are considering whether you are forced to have health care? What a ridiculous challenge when there are a few hundred things wrong with this terrible legislation. About 300 pages actually tackle the insurance of the uninsured and the rest will drive health care costs through the roof. Unless you live under a rock you have already been exposed to Obamacare with your increased monthly health insurance premium.
Using the Commerce clause to force people to buy something the Federal government wants them to buy is clearly unconstitutional. If Bamstercare is found constitutional my concern—after what the slugs in Congress and the current slug in the WH will probably do with that precedent—is that a majority of people will come to see the Supreme Court as just another ideologically polluted and morally corrupt part of the DC government. If the individual mandate is upheld we might see more of the same from the Supremes because the bloom will be off their rose and the leftist slugs among them will no longer care about holding on to their old façade anyway.
If the Supremes rule against the majority of states in support of Obamunism will the People finally revolt ? If this is a concern it follows that the government will need to void the 2nd ammendment ASAP. Absolute control of all citizens via the Commerce clause as determined by the Supremes effectively establishes Socialism in place of Democracy and Capitalism. Ready to revolt ?
“Ready to revolt ?”
I doubt it. The only scenario I can imagine a true revolt taking place is one in which people’s day-to-day lives are grossly impacted. Don’t think this decision is going to go far towards keeping people at home from the mall.
When the shockwave from the implosion of the EU hits the US,
the rise in the prices of necessities skyrockets, and the
average middle-class grocery bill becomes a budget buster,
the people _will_ notice, and demand relief, from whoever
happens to be in office.
Already have quite a few lopped off branches in my family tree from trying it once before. I simply cannot imagine what would precipitate a revolt from the center rightward. If some on the far right took some revoltionary action they would be dismissed as whackos and much of the middle would think the government did a good thing to suppress them.
The only model we have for a revolt of the states is, of course, the so-called Civil War. Even then, the states that seceded because of the threat to slavery, the first seven Lower South states really couldn’t mobilize for action on that basis alone. Lincoln played them like a cheap fiddle and provoked them to fire on the US. Then when he called for troops to “suppress the rebellion” the Upper South seceded rather than provide them. But only when the US began to take steps to actually invade the seceded states were they able to somewhat mobilize the populus to resist. The firebrands will ride to the sound of the guns over states’ rights or over the notion of independence as they did almost a century earlier, but to get any mass reaction, there has to be much more provocation and it has to be directed against people who aren’t firebrands.
During the Revolution the citizens of the New England and Middle Atlantic colonies were largely willing to let the Continental Army such as it was do the fighting while they traded with the British occupiers. Only when Cornwallis moved South and turned British depradations on the general population was there general resistance, a nasty, brutish combination of guerilla and set-piece fighting that sapped British strength and morale while also buying time for French mobilization. Likewise, the Souther yeoman farmer didn’t rush to bare his breast to the storm to protect the rich man’s right to his slaves, many of whom lived better than the yeoman did, but rather only turned out in large numbers on the threat of invasion – with more than a little encouragement from the CS Conscription Act in April of ’62
So, my sense is that only the left could really start a revolt but the right might be able to finish one.
“Socialism” is incorrect.
The government is working (colluding) with certain large private insurance providers in a way that will lead to them being more or less semi-private. That’s not socialism.
At the risk of being accused of Godwinning, consider this tasty little quote:
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” – Benito Mussolini
The PC thing to call ObamaCare is corporatism. It’s accurate and more exciting (because we actually DO need tempers flaring on this issue) to call ObamaCare a fascist measure. It is accurate to call the current batch of criminals infesting the Executive Branch a bunch of Fascists.
If your representative voted for any of the bailouts, if they voted for ObamaCare or any of many other corporatist things, they’re fascists. Forget the socialist label. It’s inaccurate. “Fascist” is absolutely, inarguably accurate.
We should not ask the confused masses why they support socialism. “Socialism” isn’t even a single ideology. It’s an umbrella term for many different collectivist ideologies. This leads the door open for socialists to mush-mouth their way into an emotionally pleasing response and leave the conversation without facing a single philosophical challenge. Ask the current left why they are pursuing fascist policies. At the very least they’ll be angry enough to make (more) mistakes.
Oh thank you thank you Mr wordsmith. You wouldn’t get off the couch if your house was on fire. You would be correcting letters to the editor in The Daily Worker while others protected your life, liberty, and property. The word socialism does in fact apply. Stop being such a passive Nancyboy.
Not yet. We do not engage in violence unless and until all peaceful means to secure our liberty have been exhausted. As of this moment, there is still hope the courts will intervene, and there is still hope for free and fair elections. ONLY after the government cancels elections, refuses to abide by the result, or the elections are blatantly fraudulent AND the courts are unwilling or unable to do anything about it does violence become an option. And even then, the military is first charged with the duty to bring such a government into compliance with the Constitution, so if the military rightly overthrows that government, we must permit them the opportunity to transition to a new elected government peacefully.
All of this comes down to one thing – “What is in the mind of Justice Anthony Kennedy?” His is the vote that matters. The two Clinton appointees, Breyer and Ginsberg, and the two Obama appointees, Sotomayor and Kagan will vote for the mandate. Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts will vote against it. Kennedy is the swing vote. All of the amicus briefs and all of the arguments will be aimed directly at him. For the next seven months Kennedy will be the most important figure in the U.S. concerning domestic policy.
To Recuse or not to Recuse
At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.
The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.
Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.
Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.
Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.
Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.
At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)
If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.
In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)
Frankly I’m skeptical that the government(court) will determine that the government(congress) exceeded its authority (converting citizens to subjects) to better rationalize corporate health care costs. Looks like a circle jerk to me.
Over one hundred years ago Woodrow Wilson, while he was a professor of political science and before he became president, argued our constitution was getting in the way of government doing what was necessary for the common good. He was in favor of a parliamentary system, not a consitutional system of checks on federal power. A parliamentary system, the British parliament for example, would have no checks on its power to enact legislation.
If our supreme court holds obamacare to be constitutional, we will no longer have constitutional protection against the exercise of federal power over citizens and states. If our congress can require citizens to purchase health insurance, it can require us to do anything. It is all up to the congress.
If obamacare survives this challenge, our country will still look like America but it will no longer be America.
The progressive dream of unlimited federal power will be realized.
And it was with Wilson and WWI that the nat’l gov first ignored the Constitution wholesale — not Lincoln. The War of the Rebellion destroyed the first serious attempt to overthrow the constitution, which was the treason done by the Confederates.
Yea, didn’t them southern redneck traitors realize that they had checked into the Hotel California when they ratified that unheeded document?
The constitution has in its express wording that the national govt can use military force to enforce the few laws it has grants of power to legislate about. The confederacy invited just such legitimate destruction as it got.
Just a thought…obamacare happens, John Citizen goes to the doctor. Suppose the doctor says due to his age the government will not give him the care,(surgery or medication), he needs to live. Could he have the doctor arrested for atempted murder or should he kill him in self-defense?
I hope that only does the Obamacare get thrown out as unconstitutional but immediately after that that one or all the justices take turns wacking Nancy with that stupid gavel she had, kind of like the wack a mole at a state fair!
You reminded me of my favorite video
Now THAT’S a good use of a gavel!!
“For the next seven months Kennedy will be the most important figure in the U.S. concerning domestic policy.”
–
Is there any chance that the protection of the right-leaning Supreme Court justices could be enhanced, at least until the election is over and the results have been widely accepted?
I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories but Obama and his minions have to realize how critical the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is to his re-election chances and, knowing the decision is likely to be very very close, they might well be tempted to improve their odds by arranging a little “accident” for one or more of the conservative-leaving justices. Then they could appoint a replacement that was far more sympathetic to their ideology and virtually ensure that Obamacare is found to be Constitutionally valid.
The majority of Americans support and benefit from Social Security and Medicare. Keep them, improve them, eliminate fraud, stay away from idiotic ideological discourse, respect the lives of senior citizens. Best government idea since the 1930′s!
z5q http://www.lifeinsuranceplanscompare.com/|life insurance quotes wrg