Liberty the Victim in 6th Circuit Ruling
June 29th, 2011 - 12:00 pm
I don’t understand this 6th Circuit Court ruling on ObamaCare at all. Haven’t read the whole thing yet, but a one bit stands out:
“The provision regulates active participation in the healthcare market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity.”
Even one-time visiting constitutional law lecturer Barack Obama understood that the Constitution is a “charter of negative rights.” But the 6th doesn’t seem to comprehend any limits to federal power, which seems to be saying, “That which is not mandatory is forbidden, comrade.”
Pack the courts with folks who hate the Constitution. “Living Constitution” means ignore the Constitution wherever it proves itself to be inconvenient.
Lynchings may end up being needed.
“When in the course of human events….”
“…and in any case, the Constituion imposes no categorical bar on mandating that all judges must glue a red rubber ball on their nose, dress up as clowns and speak entirely in limericks when ruling on a case.”
/Sam Kinneson Scream Aggggghhhhhhhh! Aggggghhhhhhhh! Agggghhhhhhh!
WHAT?!?! The Constitution doesn’t not NOT fail to not say that you can’t not not fail to not not buy health insurance? Did I get it right?
Starting with the “Commerce clause” many parts of the Constitution need a short amendment defining what they mean. The single greatest failing of our Founders was the belief that only honest men of good character would be in a position to interpret the plain English in that document.
The following is something I wrote during the HC law debate. It’s astounding that it applies as much to a Federal court as to Nancy Pelosi.
The problem with allowing what ever you want to call the left participate in government or the press is that they are literally un-constitutional, in the same sense as 7-Up is the un-cola. For instance I’ve noticed that when one asks any lefty, if it’s constitutional to mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, whether they are in government, the press or are considered a pundit one gets the following answer. They immediately start to explain why it’s necessary for everyone to be in the insurance pool for their insurance reform scheme to work. Not for one second do they consider, let alone address the constitutional question. For the left “The United States Constitution” is a meaningless phrase, mumbo jumbo at best some quaint scrap of parchment from some misty distant past. In short the idea of limits to what government may do exceeds their comprehension skills.
http://thecampofthesaints.org/2010/03/12/leftist-sleight-of-hand/
It looks to me like Judge Sutton, who was the key vote and who clerked for J.Scalia, was setting up a situation where SCOTUS is forced to reexamine the two Commerce Clause cases that expanded Congress’ power or just admit that there is no limit to the Commerce Clause. I love this quote:
“But there is another way to look at these precedents—that the
Court either should stop saying that a meaningful limit on Congress’s commerce powers exists or prove that it is so.”
He basically said that if Congress can regulate wheat or marijuana that never entered and was never intened to enter the market, then inactivity can be regulated as well.
Another possibility is that he was setting it up so J.Kennedy would take the less extreme option of recognizing that a person cannot be forced to enter a market when faced with the possibility of upending established Commerce Clause case law. Judge Sutton seemed to hint he did not agree with the two cases that forced his hand, but that as an appellate judge it was not his job to overturn case law – but that the SCOTUS could. Judge Sutton’s opinion basically drew the roadmap on how to overturn his own decision.