ObamaCare Held Unconstitutional: The Brilliant Decision
In a seventy-eight page order released on January 31, Judge Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, held the mandatory medical insurance provisions of ObamaCare unconstitutional as exceeding the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause. Finding the mandatory insurance provisions not severable from the remainder of ObamaCare, he declared it unconstitutional in its entirety and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant federal government.
In most respects, Judge Vinson’s opinion tracks that of Judge Hudson in the Virginia case finding that there is no basis in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution upon which to justify it. Unlike Judge Hudson, Judge Vinson held that the mandatory medical insurance requirements are the keystone of ObamaCare, needed to fund it. He did not consider it his prerogative to attempt to rewrite the legislation and hence held that the whole thing must fall.
Judge Vinson’s decision provides many reasons why the mandatory medical care provisions of ObamaCare exceed the powers granted to the Congress under the Commerce Clause in ways never previously attempted. Congress has never sought to impose a requirement that individuals cease the inactivity of not purchasing something and undertake the activity of doing so. He provided a lengthy analysis of what the Commerce Clause originally meant, i.e. regulating “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and discussed the ways in which it has been judicially engorged:
There is no doubt historically that the primary purpose behind the Commerce Clause was to give Congress power to regulate commerce so that it could eliminate the trade restrictions and barriers by and between the states that had existed under the Articles of Confederation. Such obstructions to commerce were destructive to the Union and believed to be precursors to war.
Then came the New Deal and other legislation of the 1930s and later; things changed substantially, to the point that growing small quantities of wheat for private use was held to be covered and later growing marijuana for purely intrastate use as permitted by California was held to be covered. The theory was essentially that activities such as these, while infinitesimal in isolation, would have substantial impacts on interstate commerce if engaged in by many people.
Then, in 1995 in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which criminalized the possession of a firearm in a school zone. The Court observed:
Even in cases which had interpreted the Commerce Clause … expansively, every decision to date had recognized that the power granted by the Clause is necessarily “subject to outer limits” which, if not recognized and respected, could lead to federal action that would “effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.” … Consistent with those limits, the Lopez Court stated “we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.” … The “substantially affects” category was the one at issue there, and in holding that the statute did not pass muster thereunder, the Supreme Court focused on four considerations: (i) the activity being regulated (guns near schools) was not economic in nature; (ii) the statute did not contain jurisdictionally limiting language; (iii) Congress did not make any formal findings concerning the effect of the regulated activity on commerce; and (iv) the connection between that activity and its effect on commerce was attenuated.
As for the fourth consideration, the Court impliedly conceded the claims by the government and the dissent that: (1) gun-related violence is a serious national problem with substantial costs that are spread throughout the population; (2) such violence has adverse effects on classroom learning (which can result in decreased productivity) and discourages traveling into areas felt to be unsafe; all of which, in turn, (3) represents a substantial threat to interstate commerce.
The Lopez Court made a point to “pause to consider the implications” of such arguments, however. … It found that if such theories were sufficient to justify regulation under the Commerce clause (even though their underlying logic and truth were not questioned), “it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” and “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”
To accept such arguments and uphold the statute, the majority concluded, would require the Court … to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.
Id. at 567-68; see also id. at 578, 580 (explaining that it is the Court’s duty to “recognize meaningful limits on the commerce power” and intervene if Congress “has tipped the scales too far” as federal balance is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom”) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis added)
Judge Vinson then proceeded with a similar analysis of the 2000 Supreme Court case of United States v. Morrison challenging the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. In essence, although violence against women is bad and harms interstate commerce (women brutally attacked might, one assumes, forebear from buying shoes for awhile), it had been held otherwise to have nothing to do with interstate commerce.
A brilliant decision if you believe that the Constitution is the law of the land.
An irrelevant decision if you don’t, as in little lenin’s mind.
But if there is one thing we should thank the founders for, it is the second amendment. So far, the subversives haven’t figured out how to get around that one, solely because it is there in the first place.
Maybe I’m wrong, but somehow, I just can’t see Universal Population Control (aka, Obamacare) being settled by a Supreme Court decision. If the side of evil wins, maybe, since our side actually observes the Constitution. But if Anthony Kennedy flips the coin for us, the marxists will view it as just another speedbump in their march to tyranny.
The decision isn’t brilliant and the PPACA will be found to be constitutional by SCOTUS. Kennedy will be the swing in favor. Can’t wait to hear the teabagger blood vessels popping across Amurikkka when that happens. But don’t take it from me, listen to what former Reagan Solicitor General, Charles Fried had to say. But I am sure all of you erudite law scholars know far more than him. And besides, it wouldn’t matter what he said anyway because if what he says doesn’t comport with what you already want to believe he’s a fraud in the tank with the lame street media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-UGQIkYEBPo#
I rest my case.
I congratulate Judge Vinson on his exhaustive and thorough analysis.I congratulate the author for his descriptive outline of why this legislation is constitutionally wanting.
The Supreme Court has wandered far from the intent of the founders, especially when it has considered issues germane to the Commerce Clause. The most ridiculous decision I can recall off hand is mentioned in the text of Judge Vinson’s order, the wheat decision announced in Wickard v Filburn in 1942. The majority in that case decided that the wheat grown for the private consumption of a farmer impacted interstate commerce and could be regulated by Congress. I can not come up with a more absurd result, or one that I would have more confidence the founders would find laughably incoherent. The justices who formed a majority in that decision must have fancied themselves clever as they stretched commerce clause boundaries. History has unmasked them for their foolishness and lack of historical understanding. My ability to respect that Courts intellect is confounded by their lack of respect for the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution and the work done in the summer of 1787.
It will be interesting to see how Justice Kennedy feels about this legislation, and I use the term “feels”, rather than thinks, purposefully.
The federal courts in our fair land are busy departing from the concepts of liberty and limited federal authority. The more they muck it up, the more crippled our economy and society becomes.
It is time to amend the Constitution so that the 9th and 10th Amendments have new vitality. It is also time to permanently restrict the federal government from deviating from the limited enumerated powers contained in Article I, Section 8. Only then will liberty and free markets be restored. Only then will the citizens be able to control government by exerting power at the state level.
I fear many educated people, including a number of our federal judges, have lost faith in the protections against intrusive government which are written into our constitution. Instead, they prefer, as did Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, a parliamentary system operating without a written constitution where the legislature may enact anything it so chooses. The methods employed to pass Obamacare are a good illustration of the process; the congress and the president knew better and the public be damned.
I fear the commentator was correct who wrote Justice Kennedy will be reluctant to vote for anything that would incur the wrath of the New York Times.
If Obamacare survives a US supreme court decision, it will seem as if we are still living in the United States but it will be a radically different country which is really, I think, the underlying idea behind the legislation. It was never about medical care; it was always about forever altering the social compact – without asking us or making that clear to the country at large.
Medical care was just a ruse.
Excellent analysis
“Only one who simply doesn’t care about individual rights could read Judge Vinson’s decision and still believe the individual mandate is constitutional.”
This accurately describes The Self-Exalted One, Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, and all the rest of the “wise heads” who created this. Which means that they will simply ignore this decision and continue on their merry way until stopped, and stopped hard, by the Supreme Court of the United States.
After which, I expect The One to try to “pack” the Supreme Court, just as FDR did, in an effort to get a court that will agree with him.
And that’s when the fun will really begin. Look for a fairly nasty summer in Foggy Bottom.
(And don’t forget the popcorn.)
cheers
eon
That the obvious seems brilliant is a clear indication of how far America has strayed from her founding principles.
We can’t give credit to “the Founding Fathers” alone. The people gave very decided input to their representatives at the convention. The mechanisms and powers chosen were selected to reflect popular will.
There was a healthy and vigorous debate over the draft Constitution once released. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay defended in in the Federalist Papers against just criticisms and wound up offering some compromise language in response that became the Bill of Rights.
Once we had a national consensus, each legislature voted on it or had a popular direct vote.
So the Constitution is NOT only as the Founding Fathers conceived it but as the citizens received and modified it before binding themselves to its provisions.
No, the Constitution is the result of agreement by the whole body politics amongst themselves. It is far more than just the words of “the Founding Fathers.”
“It is far more than just the words of “the Founding Fathers.”
Excellent point. And, in those days, the average (urban) citizen was more politically savvy than the average citizen today.
The problem we have isn’t Kennedy alone; it’s Roberts, too.
Wasn’t he present in the last SOTU Address? It was a message that the regime has gotten to them both.
Unless a popular uprising happens, in which case all bets are off.
While we are contemplating Judge Vinson’s brilliant decision, let us also the 26 states attorney generals who brought him that argument on which that decision was made. The coordination, research, and dedication could not have been frivolous.
Absolutely. Judge Vinson had the benefit of numerous briefs setting out the proponents’ views of the law and the facts. He also had opportunities during oral argument to question counsel for all sides. Back in the Neolithic Age when I was practicing law, I looked forward to oral arguments because it usually became apparent what aspects of my position, previously articulated in briefs, they found troublesome and gave me the opportunity to respond to their concerns.
A lot of work went into what ultimately became Judge Vinson’s decision. The plaintiffs did a great job and had both the law and the facts on their side. The defendant probably did as well as could have been done, recognizing that it was a bad case for them. There are few things to do in that circumstance without failing the “laugh test” under which one gets laughed out of court; and as reading Judge Vincent’s opinion suggests, that’s pretty much what happened to them.
Lawyers for Obamacare Organization Issues Statement:
From the desk of D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law:
To: President B. Hussein Obama
Dear President Obama,
Well, I must admit, we did not see this one coming. Granted, my firm has been around for eons, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we can see the future. The other side generally reserves that privilege for himself, which is typical as he refuses to play fair when fighting against us. But enough complaining, we’ll just have to soldier on and make this work.
First of all, look on the less dark side. Okay, so one judge in one court said “no” to your great plan. So what? It’s not like we’ve never had to ignore a judge before. Remember Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee people? As I recall, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, and they still got marched away on the Trail of Tears (a personal favorite of mine in your nation’s history). Do you understand what I’m saying here? Jackson ignored the Court and is still hailed as a great man in your country to this day. Why can’t you have the same legacy?
Now, as to all these nabobs nattering negatively at you about “freedom”. It’s time to remind them that “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”. Of all the quotes that came out of the hippies, that has to be one of my all-time top-ten favorites. Remind people that they can have their freedom, but it will come at the expense of having access to doctors and medicine. While this may not be strictly true in all cases, it will be true enough in a few scattered cases that you can find some poor slob to go on TV with you begging for health care to get his ingrown hemorrhoids removed. Remember, it’s all about appearances. If enough of your populace that’s mind-numbed by eighteen hours a day of Springer sees one of their own crying that he’ll happily give up his freedom for a free refill of his percocet, the rest of them will join in quickly enough. After all, if it’s on TV then they’ll always believe it’s real… Read the rest here… http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/2010/12/lawyers-for-obamacare-speak-out.html
“Such an application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would have the perverse effect of enabling Congress to pass ill-conceived, or economically disruptive statutes, secure in the knowledge that the more dysfunctional the results of the statute are, the more essential or “necessary” the statutory fix would be. Under such a rationale, the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
A written precedent for this opinion goes back to one of the founding documents of Judeo-Christian civilization. In the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Paul makes the very same argument regarding a higher concern:
“But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.”
Which, read, would of course only further infuriate the ObamaCare battalions.
The “standing” Coefficient” Supreme Court ruling by Justice Marshall:
[“Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”....McCulloch v. Maryland]
In that spirit of the constitution and authority of the congress and Executive departments and agencies “it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary [to protect and promote interstate commerce.]”
Simply put, writing criminal laws and punishment, PROTECTING AND PROMOTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE constitutes the entirety of the parameters of their authority. The widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, Section 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject. Congress may incorporate banks and kindred institutions.1746 Moreover, it may confer upon them private powers, which, standing alone, have no relation to the functions of the Federal Government, if those privileges are essential to the effective operation of such corporations.
For full article ans citations see:
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/49-necessary-and-proper-clause.html
The single most efficient way to end and correct ALL the abuses within this constitutional realm is, Amend the Commerce Clause with substantive [narrowly defined] restrictive language around authorities to write criminal laws and punishment and…. PROTECT AND PROMOTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE citing the [limited] federalist intent. Anything less than this amendment is futile and spitting into the wind!
That is exactly the mechanism used by our government in the energy sector.
FIRST, they block or restrict useful and practical energy projects THEN they insist that the government gets to ration energy supplies to the citizens BECAUSE OF SHORTAGES!
The FOOL IN CHIEF is speaking at this moment saying the Egyptians should respect the order of law; Something he doesn’t even believe in here in the U.S.A.
BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA = EPIC FAILURE.
I think that the attention now needs to be focused on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals consisting of the states of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. Do not assume that these traditionally conservative states are currently comprised of conservative Justices. Although I am an attorney, I do not practice federal law – so please do your own research – and I hope Mr. Miller will do a follow up on this article.
In briefly looking at the makeup of the 11th Circuit, there are 7 Justices appointed by Reagan, Bush, Sr. and Jr. and 6 Justices appointed by Carter, Clinton and the newest Obama appointee. As I remember, it takes 11 Justices that are appointed “randomly” – whatever that means.
Or in other words, our fate as a Free Nation is now reduced a roll of the dice at the Appellate level, and, thereafter, with one man – Supreme Court Justice Kennedy.
A friend suggested that the Supreme Court may not hear this case. They may decide there is no grounds for appeal. It was counter-intuitive to me, at first, but he explained that the Libs on the Court may decide they may well lose, and it would represent a final stop to the advancement of Progressivism. They may instead decide to let the lower court decisions stand, thus avoiding putting the specific SCOTUS imprimatur on the stop line.
If they do hear the case, and they lose, it is checkmate, an end to the misuse of the Commerce Clause, big government’s favorite tool. Of course, if they find in favor of Obamacare, then the Constitution is finished, rendered a meaningless scrap of parchment, an historical oddity.
Here’s a dumb question from a layman. Why can’t these questions be solved on the basis of states themselves asking affirmatively for a court ruling on commerce issues, rather than the federal government imposing some “Commerce Clause” reasoning in advance that requires states to proactively oppose it? If there is, in fact, no real and open conflict between states over something, where is the logic in claiming you are attempting to prevent one? Or do I fail to “get” this?
And what shall our recourse be should the SCOTUS uphold this obviously unconstitutional monstrosity? They should not be the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. The Founders would never have tolerated such tyranny.
Until folks wake up and quit scoffing at the premise of amending the Constitutions Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause most everything will methodically become nationalized using (abusing) it. Most American’s haven’t a clue how much legislation and how many courts rulings have used the commerce clause as it constitutional grounding. Imagine that even things like Roe vs. Wade could not have stood without judicially redefining and abusing the commerce clause. Congressional legislation is in the thousands over the past 80 years and more aggressively since the 60′s and 70′s. The Executive Branch with its many departments and agencies have likewise, enacted 1000′s upon 1000′s of laws predicated upon the abusive interpretation of the commerce clause.
The ONLY way in which to stop and reverse the advances of socialism, loss of States Rights, Individual Rights and loss of private sector economic controls, etc., is to advance either a Peoples Constitutional Convention or States Constitutional Convention to amend the commerce clause. Short of doing so will find Traditional America buried in a grave in three decades or less. ALL our social and economic problems are indirectly and directly the result of commerce clause abuses by the federal government.
T.T. Thomas: My thoughts exactly. This genie must be put back in the bottle and the only way to do so is by a constitutional amendment restricting the commerce clause to its original meaning; and while we’re doing that, we might want to add another section requiring any rules and regulations written by the Administration to be treated as a bill to be passed in Congress and signed by the President.
Jack…I’ve been on this lonely orange crate since 1987 evangelizing for a commerce clause amendment.
With such an amendment the Executive, departments and agencies would no longer be writing commerce policy…nor would congress. Only criminal laws and punishment and [protection and promotion] of inter state commerce….as narrowly defined using the federalist papers original intent.
The adversarial’s to this commerce clause amendment view it as totally “unregulating” commerce. Quite the contrary! It simply shifts commerce back to the States who are fully vested in the welfare of commerce as opposed to the federal government who is vested only in the nationalizing (politicizing) of corruption, and inefficiency in commerce.
For example. The States would not tolerate what has become the normal corrupted principals and mechanics of Wall Street and the commodities markets, systematically approved by the federal government….such as allowing speculators who have no vested interest in commodities as producers and processors, but have been allowed to manipulate commodities world wide as hedging positions to cover other risky or tanking investments. This impacts our broad and vast domestic and worldwide commodities markets and commerce at dastardly negative levels….for the personal gain of a few criminals.
Another example would be the “de-consolidation, de-centralization and de-politicization” of the nations banking and finance empire. There is NO need for more than ten independent domestic regional investment banks servicing the nation and that together, serve as the nations independent international investment banking system. One could write volumes on this issue.!
Anyway, I so happy to see more folks begin to come around to the need for an amendment to the commerce clause. It would constitute the rebuilding of a once again great nation of commerce.
You wrote: “For example. The States would not tolerate what has become the normal corrupted principals and mechanics of Wall Street and the commodities markets, systematically approved by the federal government….such as allowing speculators who have no vested interest in commodities as producers and processors, but have been allowed to manipulate commodities world wide as hedging positions to cover other risky or tanking investments.”
Why would the states NOT tolerate this? Yes, the financial markets have invented endless ways to masturbate with the money, but if you want to change this, some kind of Federal regulation would seem to be more effective. (Although in either case, the lobbying money buys what it wants.)
Under your system you might have more lobbying money spent in state capitals and less in Washington, but if folks in Idaho need Wall Street money to borrow to grow their potatoes, how does state, rather than Federal regulation help?
So I agree that financial instruments have gotten out of control (responding to the “market” need for investors to find ways to make more money) but it will take some convincing for me to see how fifty states running a lot of this stuff independently is going to help. Can you give some specific examples of how you think this would happen?
Who was it who said, “The business of the United States is business”? Harding or Coolidge, maybe. The statement has been mocked by liberals, but it is essentially true. Commerce pervades almost everything, so how you are going to draw this bright line between the valid and invalid applications of the commerce clause is a question to be asked.
You are, of course, correct, that the commerce clause is at the root of much of the growth of the Federal government, but Whitehall can probably tell us that when the commerce clause was oked, some people feared that what has happened would happen, but they oked it anyway.
Bottom line for me; the commerce clause is NOT going to be amended, at least not until someone comes up with some clear (and reasonable) dividing lines one can sell to two thirds of “the People.”
Good comments, Dwight. Keep it up.
I think it may have been Hoover who said that.
Dwight…sorry I missed returning here to find your comment.
To amend the commerce clause is not nearly so complex as one might superficially think.
First consider returning the commerce clause back to its original intended authorities between the federal government and the states. That is to say…the federal government authority to “regulate” commerce was limited to enforcing free unabated commerce between the states…PERIOD! (“commerce among the states” meant “transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another.”) As originally understood, interstate “commerce” did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a “substantial effect” on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
Likewise, all the federal governments controlling authorities for “transportation” is VOID of constitutional authority under the constitutions commerce clause. There is an implied power to regulate traffic to the extent necessary to separate commercial traffic from noncommercial, such as to require that traffic move through ports of entry and be subject to inspection, but once noncommercial traffic is identified as such it is no longer constitutionally subject to regulation. However, carrying human passengers would not qualify as commercial traffic, even through it might be done for hire, because humans are not tangible commodities being traded. Further, as originally understood, the power to “regulate” was not the power to prohibit, nor did it imply the power to impose criminal penalties for violations.
Then, comes labor law, criminal law, taxation and the “necessary and proper” clause that has become integrated into and through the commerce clause BUT….this is not the restricted medium to discuss all these and the language suggested for a commerce clause amendment.
I would be happy to discuss in [detail] such an amendment with anybody who has an interest.
What I find endlessly amazing is that the Left could not see these points and still cannot see them. They are quite blind as regards individual rights and constitutional guarantees of such rights. This blindness is not limited to Obamacare but is found in their complete inability to see that so-called climate science has produced no evidence of warming caused by man-made CO2. In opposing the Left, we are opposing irrational people.
What makes you think they can’t see or don’t understand the points? Of course they understand them.
And they aren’t irrational either. They don’t CARE what the Consitution says. For them, the Constitution isn’t a good thing, it’s the biggest impediment standing between them and their objective, which is to rule without challenge forever.
Hear hear. They know exactly what they’re doing. They hope we don’t.
Ohh,just like the FCC didn’t ignore the court order not to impliment NET NUTRALITY!!!Mr Judge,you need to issue an order forthwith,to stop and desist(sp)or they will just ignore you until they get to a judge that rules in their favor!!There are 1,968 new rules that Sebeilus is putting into effect AS WE SPEAK!!We must stop this NOW.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: I find it deliciously ironic that, with all the nasty little nuggets buried within the 2,700 pages of this monstrosity of a bill, the few little words that WEREN’T in it are what is bringing it down: “non-severability.” What a hoot! Hey San Fran Nan, when you arrogantly and asininely advised us ignorant masses, “We’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it,” you were so right! Guess you should have told your asinine fellow Dumbocrats in Congress, “WE’LL have to READ it to see what’s NOT in it.” Savoring the rare sublime moment.
Guess you bunch of soulless liberal lawyers would have had to have read it to then have PROOFREAD it. When you Dems heard your typical dirty back-door dealings trap snap shut, weren’t you surprised to find YOURSELVES in it? How glorious a moment for the knowledgeable public.
As Tom Clancy said in Executive Orders, “You never were a very good lawyer.”
Congressional reps who voted for Obama Care should be declared unfit to serve office and kicked out, then put on trial as traitors. They’re either traitors or too stupid to be trusted to make important decisions. Most of them are the former. Al Franken, Barney Frank, Weiner, all the weenies…the latter.
Let’s everyone be reminded of Speaker of the House Pelosi’s comments…
Seems like Pelosi isnt big on reading…
Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
Then this gem…
Q: Obamacare mandate constitutional? PelosI: “Are you serious?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uk99L8oqQ
“Are you serious” about the Constitution, Nan? Only idiotic or power-greedy Americans aren’t. It drives me nuts that “progressives” want to REgress beyond the most amazing, awe-inspiring document ever written (with the exception of the Bible, of course). The arrogance, greed and manipulativeness of this woman has no boundaries. It’s all part of the hackneyed “Libs are smarter than conservatives” myth: libs are too smart to have their “all-seeing creative open-mindedness” hampered by a mere 200+ year old document. Bunk.
Sad how “those people” cling to their stunts and their libels.
Keep drinking the moonshine Bubba. Listen and learn about the Constitution not the fairy tale Glenn Beck told you about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-UGQIkYEBPo#
The comments are as good as the article.
While hailing Judge Vinson as a hero for his ruling (and his writing), I’d say that the fact that we’re even having such convoluted debates over what constitutes “commerce” is the mark of a society gone terribly wrong.
You know that, as we speak, the bureaucratic socialist lawyers at the department of (in) justice are continuing their elaborate dance, scrambling for new and novel straws for any remotely plausible argument to justify an illegal extension of federal power.
A stunning part of Judge Vinson’s ruling that hasn’t gotten much play is that Barack Obama himself stated in 2008 that he opposed the individual mandate.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Funny Barack should say that. For years Congress has been insisting that even poor (destitute?) people should be given mortgages, in essence saying that it’s an American right to own a home. Community Organizer Obama helped to train “the poor” to harass lenders who weren’t extending enough loans to the poor (what we NOW call “toxic loans”); I wouldn’t think he’d make that particular reference, lest someone bring up his past. (Yeah, right.)
Such an application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would have the perverse effect of enabling Congress to pass ill-conceived, or economically disruptive statutes, secure in the knowledge that the more dysfunctional the results of the statute are, the more essential or “necessary” the statutory fix would be. Under such a rationale, the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
That dynamic has been in play for a long time, unintended consequences of legislation requiring fixes in the form of more legislation, having its own unintended consequences, on and on, into infinity.
The sheer number of laws currently on the books over every niggling aspect of human activity is genuinely shocking.
While the power and arrogance of the Executive has grown such that it feels no particular obligation to the other branches, such as the Obama administration currently blowing off Darrell Issa’s inquiries.
(Who remembers that the “necessary and proper” clause only pertains to Congress’ enumerated powers ?)
No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
~Mark Twain (1866)
I hadn’t considered that liberals on the SCOTUS might refuse to hear the appeal. That’s a novel, but Machiavellian approach. Lose the battle, but don’t risk losing the war in one decision.
However, someone mentioned that all the pols that voted for such a monstrosity should be voted out. I agree! I’d also add that any Judge who rules that this travesty is Constitutional on the merits be Impeached and Removed. Including those presently on the SCOTUS, as they will have violated their oath of Office.
I would also support clarifying Amendment to the Commerce Clause if a definitive recision is not forthcoming by the SCOTUS. That’s not likely because of the 4-4-1 muddle. We need to get genuine Constitutionalists on the Court that will consistently stand up for our social compact!
“I’d also add that any Judge who rules that this travesty is Constitutional on the merits be Impeached and Removed. Including those presently on the SCOTUS, as they will have violated their oath of Office.”
It’s ironic that those sworn to uphold the Constitution seem to spend so much energy figuring out how to get around it. Yet I’m sure they would claim a “literal” interpretation, as thy are diligent to seek out any possible link or void that might speak of any number of previously unarticulated “rights.” It’s about treasure-hunting for “justifications”–unhindered by intangibles like common sense or original intent. After all, who can adequately pin down “common sense” and “original intent” when faced with text which can be read as much according to what it says–as according to what it doesn’t say?
Just maybe the Democrats’ insulting, destructive, Al Capone-style power grab to decide who lives and who dies, will scare enough people to reverse the creeping socialist tyranny that has oppressed Americans since FDR. The United States Constitution empowers only a limited government with specifically enumerated powers. Supreme Court “justices” who cavalierly “interpret” these “necessary and proper” limitations away, in favor of unaccountable dictatorships like the EPA, FCC, and TSA, not only disgrace themselves. They betray their trust by subverting the law they are sworn to uphold.
Comrade Zero and his fascist thugs have brought us to a turning point in American history. One of us has to go. Let’s make sure it’s him.
The judge said he didn’t believe an injunction to stop the health overhaul was appropriate, because it is generally understood that the executive branch will obey a federal court. The government, however, doesn’t believe the ruling requires it to stop implementing the overhaul.
…the Obama administration said it has no to plans to halt implementation of the law.
“We will continue to operate as we have previously,” a senior administration official said.
Two points:
T. T. Thomas: Rather than trying to box in the politicians with Constitutional amendments about the Commerce Clause or balanced budgets, lets consider the Founders’ mechanism for dealing with such things: Checks and Balances. We lost a critical check with the 17th Amendment. Do a thought experiment – imagine if the state legislatures were once again sending senators to Washington D.C. Do you suppose they would vote against their state’s interests? If they did, they would be yanked home so fast they’d get whiplash. Rather than another amendment, repeal the 17th (and the 16th, while we’re at it).
The Founders intended three co-equal branches of government (and no, not Shumer’s “House, Senate and President”). Judicial review, as Marshall initiated it, makes the Supreme Court, well, supreme. If we need a new amendment, lets clarify that Congress and the President are not in fact BOUND by Supreme Court decisions. They should ignore the ones with which they disagree, and the ultimate government, We The People, can vote the congress critters or president out at the next election if WE agree with the Supreme Court.
Jack….check and balance authorities are specifically directed within the constitution as I believe you’re eluding to. However, when the constitution becomes so thoroughly and arbitrarily reinterpreted by those granted checks and balances by “process” then we no longer have the constitutional intent for those checks and balances. ALL the abuses rendered through the principal articles and amendments of the constitution are secondary and can ONLY be enacted through the commerce clause. Therefore, a commerce clause amendment would be the all encompassing fix to 99.999% of all the constitutional abuses that has brought our nation down to where it is today.
Yes, teabagger, you go right ahead and run the next election campaign on taking power away from “We The People” to elect the Senator we feel best represents us. Good luck with that you fascist extremist.
“teabagger”? “fascist extremist”? Hey, moderator, Wake up!
Taking power away? Really? It is how it was originally set up, and then some chowderheads came along and changed it. It has not worked out well. The people have lost power, not gained it.
The U.S. Senators used to be appointed by the legislatures of their States. This gave the States’ Governors some direct influence over the Federal government. It was a check against the Feds, as the senators were beholden to the States.
This was known as a Republic, not a Democracy. The problem was, a few States could not agree to a Senator, being terribly gridlocked, so they sent no one, and thus, were not represented. This was the opportunity for the Progressives to remove that check to Federal power, with today’s results of Senators clearly voting for legislation against the will of the people who elected them. They completely lie on the campaign trail to get elected, and there is no remedy in many cases, once the lie is discovered. 6 years is a long time in political terms.
Democracy is how the hucksters get into office.
Hey, if the moderator tolerates Mr Lucky’s perverse schtick, he is unlikely to respond to boilerplate political invective. Just saying.
As far as having the states elect their senators, I can only imagine the amount of political infighting, wheeler-dealing etc going on in these legislative bodies to send along their senators. That does not even include the posturing that coud happen after a senator cast an unpopular vote. Off with his head! Beware mob rule. The current way seems a cleaner cut, even if you may not care for the current constitution of the senate. It also provides for a bit of stability, hence the six year term.
“Blather” Control Alert!
Gee Pick It Fence But, as far as a moral relativism goes, isn’t “perverse” just a social construct designed to control the actions of others?
But D-White, is the human race inherently evil?
But They took away all of his toys.
I remember during my 2nd year of law school (1998) I had a terrible constitutional law professor. (I hope he has since been fired). Anyways, the commerce clause issue was a brief one day discussion. Then a year later, I ended up taking a course on state taxation (as opposed to Federal taxation). In this course the commerce clause was discussed in great detail. It was not until Obama care was proposed that I had thought about the commerce clause. 10 years had lapsed and yet I recall clearly wondering how Congress could force a citizen to buy health insurance. I am not a constitutional law scholar by any means, but considering the President is in fact a constitutional law scholar in any every way, I am wondering why Congress rammed through the legislation with such an obvious legal defect. With so many democrats out of the House since the legislation passed, I would imagine it is dead legislation and the Supreme Court will affirm Vinson’s thinking regarding the commerce clause. The language used in the Lopez decision is a great warning about the inherent dangerous of an overly broad application of the commerce clause, “it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” and “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.” Obama care is exactly the kind of legislation the Lopez Court was concerned about.