It’s Not the Supreme Court, Stupid!
On ABC’s This Week, after ObamaCare ran into a “trainwreck” in the Supreme Court, former Obama administration official Van Jones described the law as a last-resort effort to prevent Americans from dying. Since the pitch previews how President Obama hopes to spin a possible loss at the Supreme Court, it is worth considering it further. Jones said:
[I]t’s so amazing to hear the Republican Party now cheerleading for the free loaders. Listen, if you dive-bomb yourself into an emergency room, don’t worry about it, taxpayers will pay for it. We have no — there’s nothing we can do to make sure that people pay on the front end.
Now, listen, you have people on the left who have been saying the whole time, let’s go with Medicare for everyone. They said no, that’s too much government. So we said fine. We’ll go with individual responsibility … and now that doesn’t work. What does that mean? That means we’re going to be going back to a system [we have] right now. …
But what I don’t understand is what does the Republican Party want here? If we can’t have single payer, we can’t have a public option, and we can’t have individual responsibility, what we’re going to have here is more Americans dying. [Emphasis added].
James Carville pitched the same theme with his gift for slogans: “go see Scalia when you want health care.”
The Jones statement is a false narrative of the legislative process that led to ObamaCare, and a false prediction of the outcome of an adverse Supreme Court decision. Jones is correct that the administration could have gone with “Medicare for Everyone,” but in 2009 such a program could not pass even a Congress completely controlled by the Democratic Party. The problem centered on Democrats who knew they would have to stand for election in about a year.
The reason “Medicare for Everyone” was rejected was not simply that it was considered “too much government.” It was because everyone knew Medicare itself is financially unstable, and expanding it to cover not only people 65 or older, but everyone in the country for their first 64 years as well, would have involved astronomical tax increases and/or astronomical new borrowing. Even with complete control of Congress, Democrats did not dare go with such an approach. Pitching ObamaCare as “Medicare for Everyone” was a political non-starter — as was a “public option” the public knew would turn into the same thing.
Obama’s alternative was not “individual responsibility,” but a government mandate compelling purchases of policies from insurance companies unable to decline risks or limit benefits, with health care to be micro-managed by an unelected board in Washington, deciding everything from end-of-life care to contraceptives for students. The program was styled as a regulation of commerce, but it was really the creation of a new governmental program with every person in the country required to participate.
The Congressional Budget Office noted that an individual mandate “would be an unprecedented form of federal action” since the government “has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” The Eleventh Circuit, in a 207-page opinion jointly-written by Democratic and Republican appointees, also found the individual mandate “unprecedented.”
Despite former professor Obama’s assurance that “in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional,” ObamaCare went significantly beyond existing case law. The high water mark of Commerce Clause power was set by Wickard v. Filburn (1942), upholding production quotas on a local farmer producing wheat for use on his own farm, on grounds such local activities could, in the aggregate, affect interstate commerce. But it is one thing to regulate the activities of a farmer engaged in farming; it is another to mandate that every person buy wheat products.
Former law professor Barack Obama said it would be “unprecedented” for a Court to act as “an unelected group of people [who] would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” – a shameful assertion that would get a first-year law student kicked out of class the first week. A law student who thought Wickard controls the issue in ObamaCare would be gone shortly thereafter. The government can regulate the production of Wheaties; but mandating that every person buy it, on grounds that we’re all in the market for food, is a different proposition.
Moreover, at this point virtually everyone — including the Supreme Court justice who is the leading champion of a “living” Constitution — acknowledges that if ObamaCare is upheld, there is no “limiting principle” that would restrict the individual mandate to one kind of commerce. If Congress can require everyone to buy health insurance, there is no principled reason Congress cannot require everyone to buy anything else.
Congress is not likely to mandate that everyone buy broccoli (or Wheaties), although there would be no constitutional reason why it couldn’t. Less hypothetical would be mandated purchases of Chevy Volts, or Treasury bonds as part of everyone’s individual retirement portfolio, or green products sold by companies like Solyndra. It is a short step from ObamaCare to ObamaCars and beyond, with no constitutional limitation to stop the movement.
A lopsided majority of likely voters opposed ObamaCare the month it passed and has opposed it every month since; currently 56 percent want it repealed. It was hyper-partisan legislation, passed in a hyper-partisan manner, voted on by legislators who, like the rest of us, only found out what was in it after it passed. It is not clear a Supreme Court decision overturning it would be unpopular, particularly since the Court would not preclude Congress from addressing health care by other means (and there are a lot of other means).
If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, a principal issue in November will be which candidate will be willing to sign legislation repealing it. If the Court holds it unconstitutional, a principal issue will be what should replace it. The result will not be, as Van Jones suggested, “going back to a system [we have] right now,” but rather a requirement that Congress produce, out in the open, a system that will command majority support among the public and observe constitutional limitations.
President Obama will blame the Supreme Court for his problems, but it is he who created the constitutional mess in which we are now embroiled. The Court is not the problem. Perhaps the Republicans can think of a slogan to get that point across.
This is where we get into the difference between a democracy and a republic:
“Former law professor Barack Obama said it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a Court to act as “an unelected group of people [who] would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law”
In a pure democracy there could be a ‘duly constituted and passed law’ to deport all [insert name of minority here] and it would be perfectly legal. Not so in a republic. In a republic the law of the land, in our case the Constitution, is superior to legislated laws if the laws conflict with it.
I disagree with your definition of both ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’.
In my view, democracy is merely a mode of decision-making, where the majority in the voting group, made the decision. This does not mean that a nation whose decisions are made in this way has no rule of law and only uses majority-for-the-moment decisions.
A republic is a state whose key leader is not hereditary but is elected. This has nothing to do with this nation having a rule of law.
Canada for example is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. I’m sure you don’t imply that it has no rule of law. Its parliament will vote on a bill but the Governor General and Senate must evaluate whether it follows the rule of law.
The US is both a republic and a democracy. Its decisions are made, by majority vote, and must abide by a rule of law. Congress will vote on a proposed bill but the Supreme Court will evaluate whether that bill follows the rule of law.
I have to disagree. The Founders were learned men who studied history. They knew that democracy was unstable and that’s why they created some of the things like the Electoral College and originally had senators chosen by their state legislatures. As the saying goes, when asked about what kind of government the Constitution created, Ben Franklin replied, “A republic if you can keep it.”
The old saying about democracy is “two wolves and a sheep debating about what’s for dinner.” Democracy in its raw form is mob rule. The rights of minorities are not protected. The US is a representative republic where we elect people to determine the laws. The Constitution was written to specifically put limits on the federal government with defined powers and responsibilities. The Founders knew about how excessive power leads to tyranny. Unfortunately, for the last 100 years or so, the power of the federal (and state) government has expanded radically beyond what the Constitution allows.
I thought that was the point of the Supreme Court, a group of judges appointed (instead of elected) to overturn “duly constituted and passed laws” that violate the constitution. Of course, I’m no law professor, so I must be wrong about this.
“I thought that was the point of the Supreme Court, a group of judges appointed (instead of elected) to overturn “duly constituted and passed laws” that violate the constitution.”
Well, actually the point of the Supreme Court was to “resolve disputes”. It wasn’t until Marbury v. Madison that “disputes” was expanded to include disputes between the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, and throwing out the offending law included as an allowable “resolution”.
See Federalist #78 on the Court and its purposes. It is not always seen that the Constitution and the Federalist arguments for it were secular, that is, the reasoning was materialist and practical. But secular has come to mean anti-religious (a change of meaning) and we are faced with a government that has made a religion out of the state. I wrote about that situation here: http://clarespark.com/2012/04/01/secularism-and-the-affordable-care-act/.
You’re going all the way back to before Marbury v Madison to let us know the real function of SCOTUS and that in some way Marbury v Madison was an ill informed decision that blurred the courts true function? Wow! Just wow …
Extreme is far to gentle a word for people who hold such views
I’m always just amazed at how articulate our evah so better educated lefty betters are; wow, just wow!
Stupid lefty punk!
Marbury vs Madison was not a federal case, as Obomba claimed it was.
@Dave – How so? Marbury was a last minute federal appointee of the outgoing Adams Administration. When President Madison didn’t commission Marbury, he sued. It was a DC case involving federal government acts. How was it not “a federal case?”
Obama was not a professor; only an instructor, and his constitutional views are both ignorant and stupid.
We must enforce the Tenth Amendment and ensure that the Feds do nothing unless it is specifically authorized. That requires reducing the activities and size of Government by about 75%. That requires ending the Fed, repudiating the Debt and expropriating the properties of the International Bankers.
Should we fail to do so we will shortly find ourselves slaves; not citizens.
Oh, what a tangled mess….. We don’t like the law, don’t want the law, voted out as many legislators we could who voted for the law, and don’t want it to stand.
And Obama’s response is;
“I won. Now shut up and do as you’re told.”
But we are not allowed to even intimate that he might in some way remotely resemble a dictator.
I guess his repeated whines that the old men in Beijing have it so much better than he does from a “good governance” standpoint don’t count, either.
There is no point in trying to reason with this man, or his minions. They are ideologues who are impervious to facts and logic. And they have power over the rest of us, and mean to keep it.
They need to be fired this November. It’s just that simple.
clear ether
eon
This exemplifies the notions that Obama has had about “governance” for some time. Somehow, in his years of education through both radical left-wing aficionados and his sitting in class in college, he developed the notion that our government is somehow a “mob family” and that’s how business is done. Yet, he can argue the opposite side of the issue as well, as he did arguing against Hitlery’s mandate for healthcare coverage in 2008.
Yet, if he were on the sidelines watching the (evil) Bush presidency, he would be keen to point out any infraction against the Constitution. Of course when he, himself does it, it’s perfectly ok.
This again comes down to his narcissistic personality. His inability to hold himself to the standards by which he holds others. Imagine the supreme court lecturing him on a similar level if the situation were reversed and imagine the flame coming from Holder, Axlerod and Obama himself for daring to threaten him.
It’s easy for most to understand. And it will be his own undoing. The media, of course is acting dumbfounded. They can’t imagine what about this law could possibly be “unconstitutional” about it. It’s the first they’ve heard of it. So either nobody studies the Constitution or, if they did, their teacher told them it was just some garbage a bunch of greedy white men drew up to keep blacks down.
When I see people in the news who are older than me and I KNOW they were taught about the Constitution in junior high the way I was, I get sick when I realize that something has happened in their mind to make them dismiss it so.
My question is did Obama flunk freshman law class?
Not at all.
Obama is cynically counting on Americans not remembering what they were taught in civics class years before.
To someone who got an A in civics class and remembers what they were taught, Obama’s statements reek of deception and historical inaccuracy. But if you flunked civics class, or forgot what you were taught, then you won’t realize what a BS artist Obama truly is.
Obama is the MASTER at using half-truths to create his blatantly deceptive arguments. And the willing media and gullible supporters cling to those half-truths as validation of his entire false premise.
Of course not. Nobody flunks out of Harvard.
Maybe he did flunk, therefore the hiding of his records.
Actually, the question is about the quality of instruction at the University of Chicago law school.
Since his law school records are apparently classified slightly higher than the go-codes for our nuclear weapons, we’ll probably never know.
All we do know is that, based on the course syllabi and student catalogs from Harvard when he taught there, he was a “guest lecturer”, not a tenured professor. And that his (few) classes were about critical race theory and its relations to the (perceived) inequalities in the law, plus anti-discrimination law and its applications.
In short, he not only shows no evidence of being a “Constitutional scholar”, none of the classes he taught even referenced the document except insofar as to hold it up as an example of an instrument of oppression.
This probably explains his at first hostile, and then nearly incoherent, reaction to the SCOTUS proceedings. My guess is he simply never bothered to read either the Constitution, or his own health care legislation. And thus was completely blindsided by both the Court’s reaction to it, and his late-in-the-day discovery that there really isn’t much he can (legally) do if the Court decides to tell him, “You lose”.
The One does not take disagreement well. I suspect he will take defeat even worse. Even a partial victory, such as the individual mandate being struck down and the rest being sent back to Congress for a do-over, will not satisfy him. To him, even that will count as open rebellion against His Enlightened Rule.
The most likely outcome will be an Executive Order reversing the SCOTUS decision and ordering O-Care put into operation immediately. When told that such an order is illegal and cannot be obeyed, I expect him to go into full-on meltdown mode.
The “progressives” who have been whining that Obama is “too centrist” for their taste will see what a true, full-on, hard-left ideologue in crusading mode looks like, then. And so will everybody else.
It will not be pleasant for anyone. Not even the progressives, who have never understood the old saying, “Be careful of what you wish for- you may get it.”
clear ether
eon
Obama graduated from Harvard Law. Those transcripts are sealed. He was a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. A guest lecturer is generally ranked lower than adjunct faculty in the university pecking order. He was never a professor.
Now, what did he lecture about? We don’t know. How effective was he? We don’t know. What did his students think about him? We don’t know.
I was a grad student at U of Chicago when Obama was teaching. At taht time — early 1990s — the law school was bifurcated into two roughly equally-sized groups: the federalist society (conservatives), and the race/gender/ethnicity sorts.
Conservatives took Constitutional law, conservative jurisprudence and First Amendment from Mike McConnell, who is currently a judge (circuit court?) in the west. McConnell’s name is often floated as a potential Supreme Court justice.
Liberals took from a variety of self-righteous profs including Obama, who, as you said, taught to the affirmative action and race-conscious crowd. Since I was in the “other side,” I have no idea how good/bad Obama was as a teacher. I do know, however, that I had NEVER heard of him. Not once. He was a nobody.
Via InstaPundit, I found this link to one of his former students. It’s pretty damning:
Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.
Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”
I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
Obama dictionary:
Compromise=Do it my way
Significant Restraint=Do it my way
Constitutional=Do it my way
Presence of mind=See it my way to do it my way
…You get the idea.
Poor Owebama. He’s saddled with a Do Nothing Congress and a Do Too Much SCOTUS. What’s a poor well-meaning dictator to do when those pesky checks and balances get in his way?
Congress now is trying to do some things. But Obama denies it all to make it appear they are a do-nothing
In November vote. Our nation’s life depends on it.
“CLEAR!”
Got a question for you all who are so terrified of who Obama might appoint to the court, that you’re ready to accept a Romney Presidency.
Why should a GOP held House or Senate confirm any appointments Obama might make?
You can’t count on winning the Senate, if Obama wins re-election by a sufficient margin that his coattails keep the Senate in Dem hands. For example, if Obama proves that popular, he’ll carry Elizabeth Warren into the Senate, defeating Scott Brown.
Even if the GOP did manage to win the Senate by a small margin, respect for the office of the Presidency would influence them to confirm at least some of Obama’s appointees. They can’t just put a hold on all of Obama’s appointments out of vengeance.
why not. The Dems do
Well, first, Tom, the House doesn’t get to confirm anything. If you’re such an idiot that you can find equivalence between Comrade Obama and Romney, you’re too stupid to vote.
I will never understand the mindset that would in any way understate the significance of Obama’s status of being among the worst presidents in US history (mainly because he is not only incompetent, he is out to do the country in). Any of the current Republican candidates for POTUS would be far better for the job than Obama.
So;
What they’re really saying is;
“We will take care of you pathetic Americans. And, you’re gonna pay us to do it.”
Cyber, what they’re really saying is:
“We’ll take care of you pathetic Americans, you’re gonna pay us beaucoup to do it, and if you don’t, we’ll REALLY ‘take care’ of you.”
The short version: Shakedown.
Look, if the Govt REALLY wanted to take care of the uninsured and, supposedly in the interests of the rest of America and insulate the insured against paying the uninsureds’ bills, then why not set up Government-run hospital wings staffed by government employees (completely stovepiped from the hospitals we have today) where the uninsured can come any time of day or night to receive the “best” possible care that limited public funds can finance (agreeably shoddy quality) while rest of the insured utilize market rate services and doctors. Yup, a two-tier system. Why not….we have three tiers of transportation (coach, business, first), two tiers of nightlife (regular entry, VIP), three tiers of mail service (first class, regular, surface), multiple classes of accomodations, etc etc etc. I’m willing to pay for constitutionally capped health benefit for the unisured, as long as it a) doesn’t create or add to the national deficit b) doesn’t eat away at defense spending or c) doesn’t force me to use it. I pay for parks I don’t use, I pay for subsidies I don’t enjoy, I pay for foreign aid that perpetuates the problems it’s supposed to solve, but I would never let those unnecessary expenses rise to the level where they wiped out my protections, liberty, or choice. Let’s have a National Health Class (you better believe in the highly polished turd), and a separate Market Class health system for the rest of us. IF a indigent shows up at the emergency ward, he can either get funneled to wing A or wing B.
I don’t know what country you live in, but, indigents already have those benefits in the U.S. If you need federal health care, go to a VA emergency ward.
The U.S. government has been polishing that turd for decades with Medicare and Social Security.
It’s as glossy as it’s gonna get.
US health care costs far more than the health care provided to people living in other developed countries. Now answer the question “why” is this so? Since life spans in these countries often exceeds that of the USA, while the cost of their health care is much less than ours, why again is our health care so expensive? If you do the measurement on a basis of “cost/benefit”, our health care system doesn’t do very well… There is a lot of “waste” in our health care system. Much of this “waste” is caused by medically unneeded tests, medically unneeded too frequent doctor office visits. Hospitals with more expensive technologies in amounts in excess of actual need. Our entire health care system seems to be designed mainly to put money into certain people’s pockets, not to create a system of health care that is actually “affordable” to the American people. Compare the portion of GNP that is used for health care in all the other developed nations of the world. The US spends for more than any other nation does. Obviously our “cost/benefit” ratio stinks! So what is the solution? First we need to study “how it is done” in countries that obtain longer life spans at lower cost than the US. Secondly, we need to look at methods that will give the American people greater control over their health instead of relying on medical professionals whose first interest is how much money they can make. Of all those now running for President, only Texas Representative Doctor Ron Paul seems to understand this. That the problem is created by government. That government is the problem, not the solution as President Ronald Reagan pointed out many times. We need to take away from doctors their monopoly control over the supply of medicine established in 1938. Repeal prescription laws. Allow the American people to take care of their health without paying hundreds of dollars to a doctor just to get his “permission” to purchase medicine. Or be forced to have unnecessary tests or office visits just to be given permission to purchase medicine. Repeal the must treat law. Establish sufficient “urgent care centers” so that people do not need to visit hospital ER’s except for life or death situations. Allow the establishment of hospitals using lower cost technologies to give people a choice. Not everyone needs MRI’s, CAT scans, all the fantasicly expensive technologies. Do serious tort reform. Change the legal definition of medicine from a “science” (like engineering) to an “art” where there are still many “unanswered questions”. Do these things and our health care costs will drop far closer to what health care costs in the rest of the developed world! A far better solution than what has been attempted to date!
For those who believe the constitution’s “commerce clause” allows the federal government to have no limits on the ways in which it can impose its will upon us, consider the following “commerce clause” line of argument (a reductio ad absurdum argument):
A disproportionate amount of crime in our country is committed by black males, particularly black males between the ages of 15 and 30 years of age. The thefts, assaults, rapes, and murders committed by this group deprive other blacks, in particular, and society at large, of safety, liberty, and life. These deprivations cause many black victims, and members of society at large, to not live up to their potential as economically productive citizens. This, in turn, affects interstate commerce, which affects us all.
Therefore, because of their substantial negative effect upon interstate commerce, the federal government should arrest and deport all black males between the ages of 15 and 30 years of age.
I know it’s probably a silly question but IMWTK: Deport them to where?
It’s called a reductio ad absurdem argument. That is, it carries the principle the putative law is based upon to what would be an illogical conclusion in real-world terms.
If the principle of the law can be construed in such a way, without violating its stated parameters, it is a bad law.
Under U.S. Constitutional law, that is. In other countries, with other (or no) Constitutions, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). For instance, If you changed “black” to “Jew” in the above statement, you would have one of the basic operating principles of the NSDAP in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Of course, they weren’t making an RaA statement; they genuinely believed that what they said about Jews was true.
Similarly, progressives who hold that there’s nothing wrong with forcing people to buy insurance could, with perfect internal consistency, argue that it’s perfectly right and indeed vital to force them to buy Chevy Volts. All they would have to do would be to show a “net societal benefit”, even one as nebulous as “Saving Holy Mother Gaia”. “From what? For whom? And in what way?” being the questions they’d rather not answer.
And I’m sure there are a goodly number of progressives who would see that as being perfectly reasonable as well. Mainly those who consider humans a threat to their “goddess”, and/or just don’t think much of people, period.
In short, one of the big problems with crusader types in general, and progressive ones in particular, is that they consider themselves so much smarter than everyone else that anything they see as desirable is automatically Right and Good, and therefore anyone who disagrees is automatically Wrong, Stupid, and probably Evil into the bargain.
And most of their plans fall to the reductio ad absurdem argument. Because being so absolutely certain of their righteousness, and everyone else’s lack of same, they create a doctrine, and stick to it no matter what, savaging anyone who questions it. Because in doing so, that person is, in the progressives’ minds, questioning their superiority, morality, general wonderfulness, and “fitness to rule”. And they just aren’t going to stand for that.
As for the progressives actually taking the time to think things through, and as John W. Campbell said “work out the consequences” in advance, they never do. They believe themselves to be inspired, and inspiration cannot be allowed to be chained down by anything as plebeian as… logic.
Proving once more the wisdom of the old axiom, “Look before you leap”.
And the even older one that says, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
clear ether
eon
Just another way of saying “That’s my story & I’m sticking to it!”
No reason or logic is necessary
It’s no small wonder they must be defeated. Why oh why can’t we make it so?
eon;
Two things;
1. Parents of grown children have been through the stage where the kids learn to distract or divide the parents to get what they want, or cover something up; That’s one thing this regime/media is applying well.
2. The U.S. Congress has found that they can insert themselves into the cash flow of practically any commerce taking place within their reach. And they are extending their reach far beyond their limits, checks, and balances.
All I can hope for is the next challenger for the Commander in Chief position to have and display enough sophistication and intellectual maturity to keep their focus on the real problems, and handle these juveniles like the juveniles they are.
It’s a logically valid as the wheat case that underlies all the federal intervention in so-called commerce. And in response to the outraged cry that black males are citizens and they has rahts, so did the wheat farmer, but his liberty could have been taken away for growing wheat for his own purposes. In fact there is far better evidence that black males do indeed have a deleterious effect on interstate commerce than their was in the wheat case. I know there are some places with which I’ll never engage in trade because I wouldn’t go near those places, e.g., Southcentral LA, Detroit, Downtown Atlanta at night or south of Auburn Ave. any time of day.
We already have Obamacare, for several decades. It’s called “Social Security”, the national government’s imposed pension system. It dates from the 1930′s following FDR constitutional putsch. And don’t forget Medicare and Medicaid. If one of these is constitutional, the others are as well. Take one down, they all have to go. Support one, support them all.
Marsouin, you raise an important issue. The short answer is that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all exercises of the federal government’s taxing power. If the government is willing to raise taxes and take political and fiscal responsibility for a program, it can do so; but it arguably cannot, under the Commerce Clause, make people go into the market and buy a product or service they do not want. In a government of enumerated powers, the government is restricted to the powers it is given.
Here is how the issue came up during the Supreme Court oral argument on March 27, with Justice Ginsburg making your point and Michael A. Carvin responding:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: It just seems very strange to me that there’s no question we can have a Social Security system besides all the people who say: I’m being forced to pay for something I don’t want. And this it seems to me, to try to get care for the ones who need it by having everyone in the pool, but is also trying to preserve a role for the private sector, for the private insurers. There’s something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, yes, that’s fine, but if the government wants to get — to preserve private insurers, it can’t do that.
MR. CARVIN: … I think the test of a law’s constitutionality is not those policy questions; it’s whether or not the law is regulating things that negatively affect commerce or don’t. And since obviously the failure to purchase an item doesn’t create the kind of effects on supply and demand that the market participants in Wickard and Raich did and doesn’t in any way interfere with regulation of the insurance companies, I don’t think it can pass the basic -
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I thought — I thought that Wickard was you must buy; we are not going to let you use the home-grown wheat. You have got to go out in the market and buy that wheat that you don’t want.
MR. CARVIN: Oh, but let’s be careful about what they were regulating in Wickard, Justice Ginsburg. What they were regulating was the supply of wheat. It didn’t in any way imply that they could require every American to go out and buy wheat … in other words, you can regulate local bootleggers, but that doesn’t suggest you can regulate teetotalers, people who stay out of the liquor market …
We’ll find out in June who is right in this argument, when the Court rules.
With all of these embarrassing legal comments coming from da O, (no, not gaffes), it begs the questions:
1) Why was his law license revoked?
2) Isn’t it time to release the grades?
3) O had the audacity to demand that Romney release his tax returns yet no one is screaming for the release of all of his records (Donald, where are you).
No John McShame this time around. O needs to be pounded on this issue.
Before the ObamaCare fiasco I used to wonder why we couldn’t make health insurance have some equity built into it, somewhat like life insurance. The longer you pay into it the more equity you have to maintain coverage during times when you are unable to pay the premium. Say one month per year paid. Paid for twenty years? Have twenty months safety coverage after you stopped paying premiums. That would cover most out of work illness spans.
Such schemes are very common, almost universal, in Taft-Hartley Trust union-employer healt insurance plans in the construction and other seasonal industries. It is easy to do; you just impose a waiting period for eligibility on the front end and plan participants bank eligibility based on the time they work which allows them to be covered during layoffs or if they move between employers that participate in the same plan.
That would also provide incentive for healthy people to get insurance. Much better than mandatory.
More Obama Trash-Talk.
As a Constitutional Lecturer (not a Professor), BO might be aware that the USSC in fact DOES rule laws Unconstitutional from time to time.
(Barry was not on a tenure track at UC Law, and he had ZERO Publications while there … and zero while Editor of the Haahvahd Law Review).
The nine Justices are on notice that if Barry doesn’t like their ruling, he will hold his breath until he turns blue in the face.
BO has been rather unsuccessful in trying to publicly put down national figures. Netanyahu to him to stick it where the sun don’t shine, on national TV, when BHO tried to sucker him into giving up his negotiating position.
Justice Alito can be seen mouthing “Not True” at Barry’s 2010 State of the Union address where he criticized a SC ruling.
“The nine Justices are on notice that if Barry doesn’t like their ruling, he will hold his breath until he turns blue in the face.”
That’d be some trick.
Anyone remember Nancy Pelosi’s now infamous observation which went something like, “When the Supreme Court makes a decision it’s as if God is talking”? I wonder if that same sentiment will hold if the Court goes 5-4 against Obamacare and the individual mandate.
As has been repeatedly described, this issue is a Rubicon for the United States. To quote Mark Steyn the enactment of Obamacare will “Fundamentally alter the relationship between the government and citizens.” Supreme Court approval of the administrations interpretation of the Commerce Clause will mean that there is nowhere that federal government power can’t reach. If the government can force citizens to consume products or services in the names of “health care” then federalism as we know it may as well close up shop. It isn’t much of a stretch to maintain that nearly every aspect of a person’s life is related to “health” and therefore the government has an interest in the regulation of all of them. Can McDonald’s be forced to replace all of it’s meat products with soyburgers on the theory that a Big Mac (as currently constructed) contributes to obesity and therefore involves health care costs? Why not?
The left has been banking on a not-so-subtle incrementalism in the areas of health care and “the environment” to give them the society-shaping power they so crave. I’m not so sure they won’t succeed, at least with the younger generation. From my vantage point (such as it is) it seems as if those under 35 have absolutely no knowledge of or interest in historic western concepts of personal liberty. As long as they have plentiful consumer goods to keep them entertained they seem prety content to let others do their thinking for them.
…”without firing a shot.”
Khrushchev, 1956
A future conservative Congress could compel every American who has not committed a felony to buy a gun.
A future leftist Congress could promote Unions for every sector, including Unions for unemployed, and compel every Citizen to be a member of a Union.(Nazi Germany and USSR)
We could go on like that for hours, from nightmare to nightmare.
I serenely expect a 9/0 vote against Obamacare. Any Justice who would vote for it would thus confess to be a totalitarian.
and that some justices might harbor totalitarian leanings would surprise you why?
It would not surprise me, but I have an unlimited hope in the possible righteousness of the human beings. As well as an unfathomable despair about our evil tendencies.
I.e., we are, all, free.
They have voted 9/0 against Obama’s attempts to interfere with the internal life of Churches, quite in the last few months.
there is a part of me that sees a 9-0 against mandate
a little bit bigger part sees a 7-2 or 6-3 against
the biggest parts of me see a 5-4 both for and against
as you stated- a vote to uphold the mandate unveils all and so easily marks the line in the sand– what is left after that?
I’m hoping that the Supremes hold Obamacare constitutional for two reasons. Numero Uno: so that every American and non-American living in, or visiting American will have free healthcare. I applaud the San Francisco city council who passed legislation that allows city workers to obtain a sex-change operation on the city dime. That, my friends, is REAL progress. Numero dos: once we have a Supreme Court decision telling us that it is constitutional for the Feds to tell the public what to buy, then we can start cleaning up the environment by requiring everyone to drive electric and organic-powered automobiles. Anyone who wants to drive a gas-guzzling Honda Civic will have to pay a special “assessment” of $4,800, which we can funnel into enviro-friendly education for first and second graders. We can also require people to take certain classes as part of and food-purchasing program. Everyone knows that beef consumption is inherently evil (destroys the land, uses way too much scarce water, and causes cancer). So if someone buys beef, that person should then be required to take a short course about the dangers of meat consumption. This will educate our children and produce healthier humans. We can also require all those crazy Second Amendment psychos to get some basic therapy at the time of a gun purchase. That will result in less gun ownership, which will result in thousands of small children being saved from gun violence every month. Particularly little Mexican, black, and Guatamalan children. I think there is so much that can be accomplished once we have a Supreme Court decision telling us that Obamacare is constitutional. I’m so excited over all of it!
Drugs are bad.
You forgot your /sarc/ tag again.
cheers
eon
Yea; We know.
Anything that hints lewd and lascivious gets you out of the recliner.
“…a principal issue will be what should replace it.”
I hope Republicans don’t fall into this trap. As advocates of smaller federal government they should allow this power to devolve to the states, as the constitution does not enumerate healthcare power to the feds.
The Bush administration fell into this trap and I am hoping Tea Party or other candidates will stop, take a deep breath, and remember what a conservative stands for.
Otherwise, how is a voter to choose between nanny state blue and nanny state red?
Is anyone else tired of living in a nation ruled by a Communist? I certainly am. Obama needs to be removed from office by any means possible, as quickly as possible.
Since the 1700s, the Supreme Court has overruled Congressional Legislation some 160 times.
If Obama wants to try to intimidate the Court, let him.
WE all know, or should know, the move requiring people to buy a product is unconstitutional. I’m sure the Supremes do also. But when Obama is antagonizing the Court, who is co-equal in power, is just plain stupid.
Talk about hoist with his own petard….the man is an idiot.
You just don’t throw the Supreme Court under the bus and hope to get the outcome you want in legislation.
My political affiliation is Independent. I don’t like voting for “whoever the party says to vote for”. That’s what got us into this mess with Obama to start with. Looking at my alternatives this fall voting period, I’m stuck voting for someone I don’t want to vote for, AGAIN! Be it left or right side of the isle, can we at least do it right. Let’s make sure he’s a natural born american, OK? The idiot that we let sneak the last election almost bankrupt my country and it will take many decades for my country to recover.
I shoulder some of the blame: I voted against a balanced federal budget That would have nipped half the problems in the bud had it passed. Let’s make that a mandate this time. Then, a flat 8% tax EVERYONE pays; no exceptions. Add 2% to clean up the mess we’re in and then take it off the books when we recover. Stop Congress from being a career with special retirement and special healthcare that extends any later than their term. What’s good for Americans is good for our elected officials.
Actually, rather than spend the next seven months debating Mr. Obama on his defunct legislation, we should shift our focus and advance the ball. Unbelievably, we’re on a roll here, which might just be what’s bothering the Obamatrons in the White House strategy room.
So why don’t we try to do it again. The several states’ attorneys general should bring another lawsuit contesting some egregious trampling of the constitution by the administration. The opportunities are waiting. It wouldn’t take anyone very long to think of a law passed in contempt of Article I section 8.
Let’s take the fight to them.
Actually, that’s not such a bad idea.
What liberals fail to consider is that sooner or later a conservative president will be elected. And that the power they want the president to have today, will then be in the hands of a republican. Remember a few weeks ago when it was OK for the Gov to get involved in providing birth control regulations but not OK to force people seeing a sonogram prior to abortion. It just doesn’t work like that, Once you give up the power it is gone, and the next guy elected gets to say how you live
That would be due to unintended consequence and short sighted thinking as well as poor planning, do democrats look any farther than the present in their thinking, probably not and what if their present leadership becomes disabled or even gone due to illness or assassination or accident in their child like thinking they pass stuff that can and will come back to bite them in the rear with a passion!
Let’s make it easy……… repeal the 16th amendment and let the Congress collect taxes as per the original Constitution.
I fled a communist totalitarian dictatorship many, many moons ago. But the VERY FIRST measures (after grabbing power) ALL such dictatorships do are
- requisitioning ALL firearms in private possession and
- subordinating the judiciary (and the legislative) to the executive
Is anyone, I mean ANYONE, recognising the symptoms?
“But it is one thing to regulate the activities of a farmer engaged in farming; it is another to mandate that every person buy wheat products.”
REALLY?!?! It’s the SAME THING. Perhaps in your mind it’s fine, because it’s happening “to that guy”. What a darned foolish and Statist thing to say.
Your Progressivist view of the world is the problem. I’m shocked that you aren’t supporting the Obamacare law. If collectivist concepts of control of farmers is fine, why is it wrong for everyone else? Just because you don’t like its effects on you?
Yes. That’s why. Because you, Rick, like so many other Americans are more concerned with your personal freedom than that of your neighbor. You’re happy to tell other people how to live, but you’ll be DAMNED if someone else will tell you how to live.
Disgusting.
I don’t know whether to be more amused by Obama’s claim that the legislation passed with a solid majority, or whatever he said, or the new found respect and admiration for the (can you say Kelo?) SCOTUS that has suddenly appeared in righty grumblers. But, trying to be optimistic, one could say that shows that the system, broken as it is, sort of works. Does healthcare?
Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote.
Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
Article 3 Section 2: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law & fact WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS and under such regulations the THE Congress shall make”.
I suggest that judicial review was NEVER the intent of the framers and only a miscarriage of justice under the most tainted of circumstances (John Marshall, as Sectary of State was being sued by Marbury to secure his commission when, prior to hearing the case Marshall (an avid PRO-Federalist) becomes Chief of the Supreme Court, which should have forced him to recuse himself) subsequently rendering an outrageously malevolent decision, in a direct assault on the now ratified Constitution, that ostensibly abrogated the powers of the other 2 branches (more akin to Pro-Federalists aspirations)acting as a power grab for the judiciary branch; allowing a small, unelected, politically motivated, group of unaccountable tyrants to mandate their particular brand of justice. Whereas the Constitution mandates laws to be ratified in Congress and signed by the President, the Marbury decision affords 9 people the power to legislate as if they hold sway over a kingdom, which I suggest is contrary to the construct of a Constitutional Republic. The remedy for legislation the People don’t care for is to be addressed only through the next election and Congress’s ability to repeal undesirable laws. As Thomas Jefferson so brilliantly and presciently wrote following the Marbury decision: “That if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
The three branches of Obama: Executive, Legislative,…waiting till June on Judicial.