The American Spectator : Obamacare Is Going Down

Text Size

Obamacare Is Going Down

By Peter Ferrara on 8.17.11 @ 6:09AM

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, death panels.

As we saw, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to find the Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional last Friday. I filed briefs in that case on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union urging that result. More important than the ruling is what the trend is showing. For all that matters in the end is what five Justices on the Supreme Court say.

One of the two judges voting to strike down the Obamacare mandate is Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee. She now joins her 11th Circuit colleague Judge Joel Dubina, appointed by Bush I, District Court Judge Henry Hudson, appointed by Bush II, and District Court Judge Roger Vinson, appointed by Reagan, in producing thorough, compelling opinions all agreeing that the Obamacare mandate violates the Constitution.

Commerce Clause Abuse

The Congress only has the powers specifically enumerated and granted to it in the Constitution. One of those is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce… among the several states."

As James Madison explained in The Federalist Papers, that power was granted in the Constitution because under the prior Articles of Confederation the various states started adopting protectionist measures against each other, disabling the national economy. Congress was actually granted the Commerce Clause power to put an end to this interstate protectionism and allow the emergence of a national economy, not primarily to grant Congress its own powers of interstate regulation (let alone the vast, unlimited powers claimed today). Madison wrote that the Commerce Clause "grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." (The Founder's Constitution, Vol. 2, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce).)

But, of course, the clause was turned around long ago to justify federal regulation, now claimed by President Obama and the Democrats to do so without limit. The question presented in the Obamacare cases is whether there is still any limit.

In State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services last Friday, federal appellate Judges Hull and Dubina joined Judges Hudson and Vinson in saying there definitely is such a limit. Hull and Dubina wrote, "The Supreme Court has staunchly maintained that the commerce power contains outer limits which are necessary to preserve the federal-state balance in the Constitution." They explained:

The Supreme Court has placed two broad limitations on congressional power under the Commerce Clause. First, Congress's regulation must accommodate the Constitution's federalist structure and preserve "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Id. at 567–68, 115 S. Ct. at 1634. Second, the Court has repeatedly warned that courts may not interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that would grant to Congress a general police power.

The police power is general government power to regulate conduct and preserve public order in service to the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of citizens. This power is not delegated to the federal government under the Constitution, but is retained by the states, limited only by the Bill of Rights and the extent to which they apply to the states.

The Judges continued:

Properly formulated, we perceive the question before us to be whether the federal government can issue a mandate that Americans purchase and maintain health insurance from a private company for the entirety of their lives. These types of purchasing decisions are legion. Every day, Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest or save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children's education, and their health care. The government contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes.

Under this theory, because Americans have money to spend and must inevitably make decisions on where to spend it, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to direct and compel an individual's spending in order to further its overarching regulatory goals, such as reducing the number of uninsureds and the amount of uncompensated health care.

The Judges rejected such a reading of the Commerce Clause, saying "the Supreme Court has always described the commerce power as operating on already existing or ongoing activity." All prior cases "involved attempts by Congress to regulate preexisting, freely chosen classes of activities." Not buying health insurance is not an already existing or ongoing activity, or a preexisting class of activity, the Judges concluded.

The Judges found the government power exercised in the individual mandate to be so unprecedented that the government could not cite a single precedent upholding it, in their briefs or in oral argument. Nor could the Judges find one. Hull and Dubina wrote:

Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (275) | Leave a comment

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 6:38AM

Thanks for the heads up, Peter... and for nailing it down firmly.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.17.11 @ 6:41AM

Now that the bill is passed, we can see what's in it. And it's an attack on the Constitution and individual citizens.

It would be the first step to a lifestyle defined by non-accountable federal bureaucrats doing the bidding of their political masters and your Constitutional rights would have been destroyed in one fell swoop.

It's a brilliant plan to create a dictatorship beyond the reach of the Constitution and so far, it's working.

chuck| 8.17.11 @ 7:40AM

Nice, our very own Politburo. Nancy, Harry, Barry, and the rest of the commies.......er....Democrats must be so proud.

Have you considered| 8.17.11 @ 9:12AM

BHO'S, I absolutely agree with you.

This law is an abomination, and if it is somehow upheld by the SCOTUS, it will mark the official end of the US Constitution and this Republic.

I have also often wondered how laws that do not allow judicial review can possibly comport with the right "to petition the government for redress of grievance" in the first amendment. Can anybody answer this?

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 9:41AM

Have You...
No it won't. They haven't collected our guns yet.

DaveS| 8.17.11 @ 10:15AM

You have nailed it. The second amendment guarantees all the rest.

A. C. Santore| 8.17.11 @ 10:39AM

And YOU've nailed it!

Of the four branches of government, the People get the final say. Let's hope it doesn't come to the 2nd Amendment, but the Proto-dictator is working on that one, too.

Anita| 8.17.11 @ 12:32PM

Oh, they will. They will.

Hillary signed small arms treaty. Just wait.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 12:41PM

50 million of us Americans did'nt sign the damned treaty. Hillary can kiss my arse.

benfromMO| 8.17.11 @ 12:45PM

It has to be ratified by the senate unless there is some loophole I do not know of. In any case, they can take my guns out of my cold, dead fingers.

GavInTucson| 8.17.11 @ 4:35PM

The Senate's already declared the treaty DOA, due to the international registry requirement.

TrueBlue| 8.17.11 @ 4:51PM

Which is a completely unexpected decision by them, given their track record.

Foxfier| 8.18.11 @ 1:54PM

As I understand it....the "loophole" is that once it's signed, it just set there. It doesn't expire.

Machtyn| 8.17.11 @ 3:05PM

And tell me, please, those of you who think RomneyCare is anything like ObamaCare, how they are "ObamneyCare"?

Sure, a couple of parts may have been ripped from MA healthcare bill, but remember that Romney's vetoes were overridden on some parts of that bill. Also, 70 pages vs 2000+pages.

Should Have Impeached| 8.17.11 @ 9:26PM

"...a dictatorship beyond the reach of the Constitution...."

In America.

Now that's a sobering thought.

"...and so far, it's working."

If that doesn't send a chill through you, nothing will.

I hope even the liberals on the Supreme Court really understand the import of this "law" that was foisted on the people.

Appleby| 8.17.11 @ 6:49AM

Forty years ago when I lived in California, in my libertarian days, a friend asked me if I would support Social Security and Welfare voluntarily; when I said No, she concluded triumphantly that THIS WAS WHY I HAD TO BE FORCED TO.

My friend was a welfare queen of low education and high expectations, but it seems to me that Obama holds that very same POV.

Jeamar37| 8.17.11 @ 12:34PM

And Obama claims to be a Constitutional scholar/professor! We are getting what a majority asked for in the last presidential election. Let's hope the citizenry will not overlook his shameless lies about his background in 2012.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.17.11 @ 1:04PM

He's no Constitutional scholar he's the posterboy for failed affirmative action who couldn't get tenure. Obama is a FRAUD & FAILURE!!!!

Dollface| 8.17.11 @ 10:29PM

I just wonder what constitution he studied. Maybe it was the Soviet Union's.

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 1:45PM

"And Obama claims to be a Constitutional scholar/professor"
Exactly, he CLAIMS to be. How in the hell would we know with all his grades locked up? Guess we should just take his word for it. Afterall, he has been so honest so far.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:41PM

He graduated from Harvard Law and has always worked for, or off, the guv'mint, doing as much nothing as possible. He's a Welfare Queen with poor education.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 7:09AM

We Can Guess Where The Three Hot Broads From New York City Would Vote.

Ruth" Buzzi" Ginsburg.
Sonia "The Latina Pepper "Sotomayor
And
Elena"Manly" Kagan.

God Save The Republic.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.17.11 @ 7:15AM

From 2010 and before the turnover in the House:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04823.html
House Democratic and Republican leaders established a diversity task force Tuesday that will sponsor training courses, build a résumé bank of potential job candidates and publish regular reports on diversity efforts, following a recent study that found a lack of Latinos on Capitol Hill payrolls.

Mike D.| 8.17.11 @ 7:31AM

The constitution is one vote from being for all intents and purposes, null and void. If this court flips one more to the left then we have truly crossed the constitutional rubicon into genuine tyranny.

shipley130| 8.18.11 @ 1:38AM

I hope SCOTUS sees your comment and take it to heart. Tyranny is color blind.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 7:41AM

Eat Shit, Dumbass.

That Was Not Me. I Got $1000 On Tool-Job Israel Firster, Lying Slandering Nazi Queer Dr. Reich, R-U-Queer-CV Or Lefty Obama-Boy Alan Brooks Using My Name.

When I Find Out Who It Is They Will Pay.

Don't Leave Town.

The Tea Party Rebellion Stomps On Their Gutless RINO-CINO Boy Faces.

Wipe Your Feet.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 8:15AM

Uh Oh !
The Israel Firster Poseur Is Back Again.

Let's See Now, Poseur, That Was Three Times Early Yesterday Morning On The Michele Bachmann Thread & Now This One Today.

What's The Matter Israel Firster Ain't Ya Man Enough To Do Your Own Fightin' Under Your Own Name ?

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:52AM

I Got $ 1000.00 That Says Wasn't My Post.

Could Be Tool-Job Israel Firster, Lying Slandering Nazi Queer Dr. Reich, R-U-Queer-CV Or Lefty Obama-Boy Alan Brooks Using My Name.

When I Find Out Who It Is They Will Pay.

Don't Leave Town.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Coming For You.

Say Your Prayers.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:56AM

That Was Not My Post.

If You Using My Name, Dr. Reich Or Crazed Little,Short,Fat Aging Israel Firster Fanatic Tool-Job, You'll Regret It.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:56AM

That Was My Post.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:01AM

Uh Oh !

That's Now Five of The Israel Firster Posts Under My Name, Counting Two Today & Three Early Yesterday In The Bachmann Thread.

Apparently, Dr.Ron Paul's Results In Iowa Have Israel Firster Tryin' Out New Stealth Poseur Poster Tactics .

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:05AM

Now, It's Four Israel Firster Poseur Posts Today & Three Yesterday.

The Short List Of Poseurs Is Allen Brooks, Dr.Reich, Maybe Kenny The Squirrel, & Michael Tomlinson.

Generally Victor-Margie & Tool Job Ain't Up & Posting Yet.

Oldefarte| 8.17.11 @ 10:23AM

Your real name wouldn't be perhaps Norman Vincent Peale, would it moron???????????

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:38AM

My Name Is Clint & The Israel Firster Poseur Is Posting Five Times Today Using My Name, Oldefarte.

And You're A Moron If You Don't See It Oldefarte.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:26AM

American Spectators Obsessed White Trash Bigot Dr. Reich Or Israel-Firster Tool-Job Attempts To Use Tea Party Clint's Name For The Umpteenth Time.

Real Men Don't Fake Their Names On Message Boards.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

We Will Bury You.

Teaghan| 8.17.11 @ 10:38AM

Clint, how about we bury them with a Ryan/Rubio ticket? There are rumblings.....:-)

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:43AM

That Was The Israel Firster Poseurs Post Teaghan.

Our Tea Party Lead Candidates Are Michele Bachmann & Dr.Ron Paul.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 11:18AM

That Was Not My Post.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 11:29AM

That's Seven Israel Firster Poseur Posts Today.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 11:38AM

Clint...who cares? Your posts have merely become "scroll-over country" in any event.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 11:46AM

Obviously You Israel Firsters Care Kenny The Squirrel, Because You Keep Having Your Israel Firster Hissy Fits Because Many Of We Tea Party Patriots Support Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.

Interesting, How The Mainstream Media Attempted To Ignore Dr. Paul's Results In Iowa.

Similar To What Rush Limbaugh Says, You Can Tell Who They Fear By Who They Attempt To Marginalize.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Doctor Right| 8.17.11 @ 12:20PM

Ron Paul is now at 9%, behind Perry, Romney, and Bachman.

Oh, yeah...The nut-job who thinks that Iran is MOT trying to build a nuke on a roll! Next stop...obscurity!!!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.17.11 @ 1:08PM

Touche

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 2:37PM

Aaand You're All Chronic, White Trash, Israel-Firster Poseurs And Anti-Catholic Bigots, Serial Crazed, Neo-Chickenhawk Bastards, Screwball Fanatic Cowards, Tool-Job Cupcakes Who Are Short, Fat, Aging Bloviators Posing As Latrine Seal Punks Dressed-Up As RINO-CINO GOP Ruling Elite Apologists

WE Tea Party Patriots Are Used To You Tryin' To Marginalize Us.

We Have Dealt With It & We Will Deal With It.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

shipley130| 8.18.11 @ 1:36AM

Ron Paul got his information that Iran is not building a nuke from the CIA.

mike| 8.17.11 @ 1:01PM

Clint, you idiot!!! You are why True Conservatives are looked upon with skepticism. GO AWAY!!!!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.17.11 @ 1:11PM

Mike you nailed the jihadist Clinton. Sometimes you've got to wonder if he isn't just a Democrat plant. It is hard to imagine that even a Ron Paul supporter could be that unhinged.

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 1:47PM

No, it isn'r really. Paul Bots like Clint/Sybil give all Paul supporters a bad name.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:21PM

Don't try to fob him off on us - he's your problem, like his idol, DR Ron Paul.

chuck| 8.17.11 @ 10:45PM

Yeah, that DOCTOR Ron Paul crap is really getting old. Everyone hates the elitist shit.

beebop| 8.18.11 @ 5:39AM

Amen.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 7:25AM

I am Spartacus.
No, wait ... I am Clint.
errr....
ummmm.... where am I ?
Who am I?
Are You My Mother?

nativeamerican| 8.19.11 @ 2:36PM

Sorry, I have to fake my name, but, if it's important it's Randy. I am sending e-mails starting with those I would support for president, I telling them now, that unless they come out in public and say that repealing the healthcare law will be first on their agenda, I won't vote for them. Because if they don't, we are no better off than if Isla-mob-amao stayed as president. I'm also sending e-mails to those on my e-mail list stating the same and asking them to do the same. We the people got into this position by being trusting of our goverment to do what we thought was best for us, they didn't, they did what they thought was best for us. It's our fault and it won't happen again, we can't afford to let it. Otherwise, comments like this will be censored and you will have no freedom of speech.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:43PM

Are you threatening me, Cornholio, sorry, C(lint) Elegans?

I can't imitate you---my IQ is above room temp---in Celsius.

You conversation grows tiresome---like Ron paul, who's support is going down faster than you on a Jihadist.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:43PM

By the way--what's a CINO?

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:22PM

I think he means "Catholic in Name Only" - talk about projection.

NedB| 8.17.11 @ 8:59AM

I've been reading that Kagan will have to recuse herself from this case due to her prior work on it under the Obama justice department.

If she doesn't and tries to rule on it, (Theoretically), it could be grounds for her impeachment no matter which way she rules.

I believe the charges would be conflict of interest and possibly perjury regarding her testimony during her confirmation hearings.

We shall see.

NedB| 8.17.11 @ 8:59AM

I've been reading that Kagan will have to recuse herself from this case due to her prior work on it under the Obama justice department.

If she doesn't and tries to rule on it, (Theoretically), it could be grounds for her impeachment no matter which way she rules.

I believe the charges would be conflict of interest and possibly perjury regarding her testimony during her confirmation hearings.

We shall see.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 1:46PM

The grounds for Kagan disqualifying herself are marginal. She did no work on the bill while in the Justice Department as the record reflects. The chances for "impeachment" on those grounds are zero.

Before anyone takes Mr. Ferrara's optimism too seriously, these are the facts: The circuit courts have split on the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the bill, the only provision in serious dispute. The outlook on the Supreme Court front is truly up in the air, with Anthony Kennedy in most knowledgeable observers' minds likely to be the swing vote. Justice Kennedy's views on the Commerce Clause's purview in the past leave his vote on this issue uncertain. Of course, if the composition of the Court changes between now and a ruling, that outlook could change as well. A replacement of Ginsburg would likely not change anything. But a replacement of Kennedy or Scalia (both of whom seem mighty healthy, I am happy to say) would markedly change the likely outcome.

We shall see.

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 1:50PM

RCV,But didn't the White house say the whole Obamace package and all the savings they claim it will provide rest on the Individual Mandate portion to make it workable

Curtis Rasmussen| 8.17.11 @ 3:14PM

The whole Obamacare debacle will collapse under its own weight if every capable citizen is not forced to pay for it.

Obamascare does not contain a severability clause, meaning if one portion is found to be null and void, the remainder of the bill is null and void.

Even Congress knew that the law would collapse without the mandate. That's why the clause was intentionally left out.

Ted| 8.19.11 @ 2:39PM

The severability clause most likely was left out due to the slap dash, rushed creation of the bill itself rather than being intentionally left out. I grant you that might have been the case, but the total lack of coherent thought or planning that went into the bill's creation argues against the severability clause being intentionally left out.

Jay Dee| 8.20.11 @ 7:58PM

I'm late to the party but the severability clause couldn't be used because it was passed by Reconciliation. The original House bill had it but they had to remove it or it couldn't be passed because Reconciliation can only be used in regards to a budget matter.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 4:27PM

I'm not saying the program won't be emasculated -- it will certainly become much, much more expensive without the individual mandate. I think the Circuit court was wrong not to strike down the entire law if they found the individual mandate unconstitutional, because it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without it.

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 4:50PM

On that we agree 100%

Malster| 8.17.11 @ 12:24PM

The good news is that Kagan will have to sit this one out. She was involved in this case on the govt side. One down and two to go.

Bill| 8.17.11 @ 12:46PM

That's "The Wise Latina Pepper" to you, wise guy...

shermbodius rides again!| 8.17.11 @ 2:46PM

You said it brother!

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.17.11 @ 7:22AM

None of this matters. We no longer control our BORDERS. The Third World continues to flood us with their people. Whereas, in earlier times, people that came to our shores had to STAND ON THEIR OWN 2 FEET, today they are GIVEN the things they need.
Half of the people pay NO INCOME TAXES. When Election time comes, I wonder which Candidate they will Vote for? The one that seeks to CONTROL SPENDING and CUT PROGRAMS? Or, the Democrat?
There's a man in the White House, who has spent his entire adult life DIVIDING PEOPLE by Race, Creed, Colour, and Income. He's doing it now. That is his whole Campaign.
We have RACE RIOTS in American Cities, today. I know that his FRIENDS, in the Media, WILL NOT Report it. But, trust me, it's happening.
Has our LEADER said ANYTHING about these RACE RIOTS?
No.
A House Divide, can not stand.
Obamacare is NOT the problem.
The THING in the Oval Office is.

Maddox| 8.17.11 @ 7:32AM

First time I've seen that title used, Timothy, but I like it.
"The Thing" is devouring the country. IT must be stopped.

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:11AM

The "feral humans" who elected the THING and cheer him on are the real problem.

squalis| 8.17.11 @ 7:57AM

Wonderful article! Reading this gives me hope that some of the liberal judges will come to these same conclusions, if for no other reason than being fearful of what a Repub / Conservative dominated government might do, resulting in a lopsided Supreme Court Vote striking down this obscene legislation.

JayDick| 8.17.11 @ 8:02AM

I guess the big question at this point is will the Supremes toss the whole law or will they, like the 11th circuit, find the mandate provision severable and allow the rest of the law to stand. I don't understand how it could be severable. The whole law should be tossed.

Frederick| 8.17.11 @ 8:37AM

Proofread your work, please. My gosh.

Second paragraph, the judge's name is Hull, not Hall. For the trmendous work he did here you could at least get his name right. Also, you refer to him as 'she' is the second sentence (unless of course this is a woman named Frank, in which I stand corrected). Come on, man, get your head in the game.

Bill| 8.17.11 @ 9:00AM

Frank Hull is a she.

fmm| 8.17.11 @ 10:25AM

proof read your work also "trmendous"?????

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:12AM

Roaring with laghter.

David Mundt| 8.17.11 @ 1:17PM

Ditto.

shipley130| 8.18.11 @ 1:33AM

Ace!

Shill Watch| 8.17.11 @ 8:57AM

It is a she, Freddie. Get your head in the game.

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:14AM

Just googled it. She IS a woman. I guess. Frank Mays Hull. WTF?

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 1:51PM

It's a southern thing. Like Bobby Sue, Bobby Joe, etc.

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 9:03AM

I believe that Obamacare is the powerful LYNCH-PIN holding back the GATES of a vibrant economy....The sooner this is settled once and for all the better!
Just who , WHO for God sakes thought up this badly written, un-constitutional, un -popular , dreadful LAW. It's about time we had NAMES of the original inventors, who caused such destruction and pain to so many families!
If one followed the POLLS on this from way before it passed to the present time, it clearly shows the American people never wanted this!
The people who brought this about should be held responsible. The ones who are deliberately holding up the courts also must be called to task!
I wonder if everyday citizens can be compensated
for all their LOSS in this bad ECONOMY!
If and when this is declared un-constitutional....and the ECONOMY bounces back overnight could some of the people be sued for DAMAGES for being overly, and willfully the cause of that individuals harm? It seems that no one should get away with all the damage this "LAW" has caused the individual american!

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:11AM

By the way Mimi, You were "Punked" by The Israel Firster Poseur Yesterday in those first three false " Clint " Posts.

They're reduced to posting under my name now.

Dr.Ron Paul has them all atwitter & upset.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:55AM

That Was Not My Post. If You Using My Name, Dr. Reich Or Crazed Little,Short,Fat Aging Israel Firster Fanatic Tool-Job , You'll Regret It.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:16AM

That's Five Today, Israel Firster Poseur .

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:27AM

That's Six Today, Israel Firster Poseur .

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:45PM

My family tree is rich and complex;
It is not a Twig, by Gosh and by Heck.

Bore me some more, boy.

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 9:21AM

Sorry...I got on a ROLL here!
One more thought...Could King Obama and his Chief Jailer be held for malfeasance in a class action suit by all that could prove that they were wronged?....Probably the WHOLE country!!!

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:05AM

Yup !
Frank Hull Is A She.

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 9:29AM

Clint.. I'm only here to put my 2 cents in ....who cares really?....can't waste energy worrying about who or what others do. Be nice, and just don't take offense yourself ! The country is divided and fighting like heck....Thats the way a free country operates...the cream LIBERTY -LOVERS will rise to the top and things will settle down!

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 9:41AM

The point is that The Israel Firster Poseur attempted to give you my two cents & you took it.

That's kinda like what Big Government Socialists do everyday with other people's money.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:12AM

That's Five Israel Firster Poseur, Posts Today & Three Early Yesterday.

Similar To What Rush Limbaugh Likes To Say, You Can Tell Who The Israel Firsters Fear By Who They Attempt To Smear Up & Marginalize.

Oldefarte| 8.17.11 @ 10:25AM

Sadly, you perform your own MARGINALIZING!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 10:40AM

WE Tea Party Patriots Are Used To You RINO-CINO GOP Ruling Elite Apologists Tryin' To Marginalize Us.

We Have Dealt With It & We Will Deal With It.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Doctor Right| 8.17.11 @ 2:29PM

"America, allow me to present...Ron Paul's supporters!"

Hey, Clint, I hear that WalMart is having a sale on brown shirts...

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:47PM

Damn, DR. R---soon it will be just Clint and his Johadist John.

Paul's support is dropping faster than a twenty dollar hooker going down on a jihadist at a stripper bar.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:46PM

Dear Mimi--you are quite wonderful. Thanks for injecting some Class into this. Clint brings out my Wolverine side.

Grzmlyk| 8.17.11 @ 9:22AM

I had to laugh at Ferrara's quaint notion of Constitutionality. In a dictatorship, the law is whatever the guy with the gun says it is. And we are so fortunate that we live under a benevolent dictatorship that only has our best interests at heart; that's the (involuntary) social contract: They'll render unto the great herd all the bread and circuses it wants, as long as the herd averts its colletive gaze from the producers who are chained to the hamster wheel creating the wealth for the rest of herd to live on.

As long as we cattle don't piss the regime off, we have nothing to fear.

So let's have no more talk about "the Constitution," a document as relevant to America today as the Magna Carta is in England.

Or, as Obama and his Korrupt Keystone Kop administration said when they passed Obamacare,

"Constitution? Constitution? We don' need no stinkin' Constitution."

Most liberals agree that the Constitution is toilet paper. Well, of course, except for those occasions when it suits their pathological kleptomania and/or powerlust to wrap themselves in it for public consumption.

Again, Orwell's Animal Farm tells you everything you need to know about Obama and his cronies: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Dictators come and go, but the end of socialistm is always the same - bloody misery, hatred, a breakdown of society, scores being settled, vendettas being assuaged - and, of course, the destruction of the currency.

America's support beams - our constitution, our values, our respect for one another, e pluribus unum - have all been kicked out from under us. The whole rotten structure is already coming down.

The GOP presidential contender who can reverse the laws of economic physics does not exist.

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:37AM

All true. And did you look at the supposed "broad limitations" the SCOTUS applies to use of the Commerce Clause.

"...courts may not interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that would grant to Congress a general police power."

I'm roaring with laghter a second time. Since Wickard v. Filburn (1942) Congress has run wild with "police power". How about the National Firearms Act of 1934? (Passed before the Wickard decision but its subsequent defense has been based on the Wickard reasoning) If you make a fully automatic weapon from spare parts in your own basement to shoot (they're really fun!) on your own property and with no intention of selling it, you can still be regulated via the power of the Commerce Clause. Ditto for growing your own weed. The problem is that Wickard was bad law. Courts have tied themselves into pretzels ever since but are too gutless to simply reverse the unintelligible "reasoning" in Wickard.

Grzmlyk| 8.17.11 @ 12:23PM

I'm not as familiar with the history of decisions, but I agree completely with you. The commerce clause is the looking glass that our governing elite pass through in order to enter a fairy land whereby they can proscribe pretty much all human activity in this county; they have twisted it such that they have carte blanche to transform once-free citizens into nothing more than subjects of the state.

And I certainly agree that the second amendment will shortly be abrogated in its entirety - as we see with the onerous process of acquiring a firearm that is now in place in Chicago, they'll find a million ways to disarm the abject populace.

Ditto the first amendment. Already we see college campuses with "speech codes" that are in direct violation of the first amendment; those speech codes will become far more pervasive with the return of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality and a thousand new laws and regulations that will muzzle anyone who disagrees with the Absolute Power of the State.

On the other hand, all kinds of thuggish and/or depraved behavior on the part of liberals and privileged victim groups is now routinely sactioned by leftist judges and propagandized juries as legitimate forms of "expression."

And of course the liberal distortion of the "separation of church and state" - which isn't even in the Constitution to begin with - is another prime example of the Constitution being distorted to mean whatever liberals want it to mean.

It is this plasticity of that founding document, this de facto rewriting of the law of the land to suit ad hoc political needs and ideological whims - that disheartens me so much about the future of the Republic.

I mean, SCOTUS is one judge away from becoming a kangaroo court more suited to a transient banana republic than the once-great United States.

Since America is now just beginning its death throes, you have to conclude that the Constitituion was indeed a suicide pact - for how else did we come to declare the Constitution itself unconstitutional?

Anthony| 8.17.11 @ 9:53AM

Mr. Ferrara, Your confidence with this Supreme Court is totally unwarrented. Which of the 4 hardcore leftist justices do you think will overturn Obozocare?
Certainly not the man whose face graces your blog.Bryer is one of the biggest lefty ideologues on the S.C. ,and by far the most arrogant and smarmy of the bunch.
Kagen and Sotomeyer are Obozo hacks. Kagen should recuse herself as Obozo's former Solicitor General, but she doesn't have the integrity to do so, especially with the huge political stakes involving this case. And politics is what the leftist justices are all there for, or have you forgotten the ugly battles to have these justices appointed?
No, I suspect it will be up to Kennedy for the deciding vote. Still confident are you?

Anthony| 8.17.11 @ 11:03AM

Shame on me for misspelling Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Besides being a horrible speller, I am too anxious to get into the discussion. I apologize.
Might I add that in the recent Leal-Garcia death penality case, these 4 leftist justices used as precedent a bill sponsored by Sen. Leahey that has not been acted upon by the Senate.
These justices are not only unmoored from the Constitution, they simply read into it whatever fits their political agenda.
We call that moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Purpleguy| 8.17.11 @ 9:59AM

"Congress was actually granted the Commerce Clause power to put an end to this interstate protectionism and allow the emergence of a national economy" - And, exactly WHAT is a national economy? The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act oversees a myriad of interstate and interrelated commercial enterprises - just what the Constitution allows for. That is exactly how the Interstate Highway System was created - by the Federal Government superseding the States' jurisdiction to build the highway system. That avoided the patchwork quilt of 50 states going in separate directions - which they have btw with regard to insurance and insurance regulation. If you don't like regulations, it's a nightmare of cross fibers of insurance regulations in all 50 states. Obamacare will reduce the redundancies, provide common standards and reduce the cost of healthcare - regardless of what the loudest screamers against it say.
What he doesn't point out is that the Circuit Court maintains severability so that if the mandate is struck down, it doesn't touch the rest of Obamacare. But even Antonin Scalia says the Congress has the right to mandate healthcare insurance for the common good for all. The strikedown is going nowhere in Supreme Court land.

Teaghan| 8.17.11 @ 10:43AM

I bet that gives you a tingle up your leg, eah Lavenderman?

squalis| 8.17.11 @ 11:25AM

As I have been reading, Congress has authority to regulate existing economic activity. It does not have the power to compel economic activity against the will of the individual.

Purpleguy| 8.17.11 @ 11:37AM

It does when it affects us all - which, if you don't have health insurance, means we will all pay for you if you get sick or injured. Deadbeats will not be allowed. Now which is it - you want to support deadbeats or you want the choice to be a deadbeat?

JayDick| 8.17.11 @ 12:06PM

Not necessarily. Not everyone gets sick or injured; they just die quietly in their sleep at some point. And, many people can well afford to pay for it themselves if they do.

If Obamacare survives, what prevents Congress from ordering higher insurance premiums for compulsory insurance for a person who doesn't eat enough broccalli.

Solo| 8.17.11 @ 1:41PM

Nothing would stop them! They couldn't be stopped from dictating what kind of activities you might participate in, or where you live, or what kind of car you drive ......all would be on the table by using the justification that "it costs us all".

That's the clue that what is taking place is unconstitutional. Because, if it IS constitutional, then there is no limit to federal power. And...if there is no limit to federal power, then there would have been no need for a Constitution spelling out Congress' power in the first place.

The entire assumption behind Purpleguy's reasoning is that we are literally 'subjects' to the State--not sovereign individuals living in ordered liberty.

That the uninsured place a financial burden on the federal government's budget is defacto proof that the federal government shouldn't be in the medical care business in the first place.
It should be left to the individual states. Then...it wouldn't be a burden to the federal government to navigate a myriad of differing state insurance laws.

We got to this kind of twisted thinking by liberals a little at a time. One over-reach by Congress eventually necessitates a subsequent over-reach and so on ....until the end result is that we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic; A Constitutional Republic specifically designed to limit centralized government's power over the individual.

Here's a question for the lefties:

Would it be constitutional for the Congress to mandate that every citizen purchase a gun? After all.....it's costs us all a lot of money and resources to run down all these crimes and criminals. If every citizen could be compelled to own a gun and be compelled to be trained to use it, then much of the crime would be eliminated at the source.

This Obamacare power grab is the ultimate "slippery slope". The steady erosion of constitutional principles (the principle of limited government) over the last 100 years has finally pushed us up against the very edge.
If we step off, there will be no going back.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:25PM

As a matter of fact, Solo, a number of towns in colonial times required male citizens to own a rifle, and sometimes required them to store said rifle in the town magazine for militia use when necessary.

Purpleguy| 8.17.11 @ 10:13PM

"Limited Government" is a quaint term that was appropriate when the Colonies had 2.4 million people spread across the Eastern Seaboard. But with over 300 million population and over 3,000,000 square miles to the country, heavily industrialized, not an agrarian society any longer, the U.S. Government has grown appropriately with the population and needs of the country. Freedom and Liberty is still the #1 draw for immigrants to this country and is the best country in the world to live in with regard to those 2 principles.
But anyone that thinks that limited government would solve any of our problems with that huge population and large land mass belongs in the 17th century - that's where their thinking is.

Grzmlyk| 8.17.11 @ 1:54PM

Allow me to be "Lavenderman" for a minute (kudos to Teaghan for the great moniker):

"Platitude, platitude, lie. Platitude, platitude, platitude, lie, lie, lie. Gross ignorance, lie, platitude, lie. Platitude, platitude, lie, lie, lie. Paul Krugman. Lie, platitude, gross ignorance, gross ignorance, abject credulity. Lie. Paul Krugman. Platitude. Platitude, platitude, platitude, abject credulity, lie. Gross ignoranc, gross ignorance, platitude, Paul Krugman, lie, platitude, abject credulity."

I think that about covers it.

John Navratil| 8.17.11 @ 12:18PM

Purpleguy,

Why the choice? Can't we have neither? I guess not with a bunch of laws mandating that hospitals admit anyone into the emergency room. Get rid of those and you get rid of the problem.

Get back to fee-for-service for routine medical care and solve much of the insurance problem, as well.

W| 8.17.11 @ 11:36AM

Purp,
please cite the authority for your statement that Scalia said Congress has to right to mandate healthcare insurance for the common good of all.

Purpleguy| 8.17.11 @ 11:37AM

I'll see if I can find it - I was amazed by it too..

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 3:10PM

We are still waiting.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:33PM

There is no such statement. But what he may be referring to is a famous concurring opinion by Scalia expressing his view of the broad range of Congress's commerce clause power. In Gonzalez v. Raich, in upholding federal restrictions on even home-grown marijuana, Scalia wrote:

"The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself 'substantially affect' interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are 'reasonably adapted' to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121."

This hardly shows Scalia's hand on the health care issue, but what it does indicate is that even the most conservative judges on the Court have come to recognize a very broad reach for Congress's interstate commerce powers.

George S| 8.17.11 @ 11:53AM

I agree that SCOTUS will not sweep away the entire law. As I write below, SCOTUS will give Congress the opportunity to rewrite the law with the mandate being changed to a tax credit. Everything else inside the law, including the death panels, can be easily tweaked by Congress to pass muster.

But your argument on the Commerce Clause doesn't hold water. The nightmare of regulations you mention can be easily swept away by Congress -- it's called amending the law. Citing the Commerce Clause so that Congress avoids repealing unconstitutional regulations would have gotten you a condescending pat on the head by any of the Constitution's authors.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.17.11 @ 1:13PM

It is going to be great when the Republican House and Senate send the repeal bill to the next Republican President in 2013. Bye, bye expensive and failed Obamacare.

YeloStalyn| 8.17.11 @ 3:07PM

I feel this route has the best potential. I have little faith in the courts.

tj| 8.17.11 @ 1:14PM

Also in this monstrosity...I have to pay 3% tax on my homes gross sale..to give to the gov and $12,000 in appliance upgrades to give to GE and other idiotic ideas to seperate me from my hard earned money!
Let the leaches and gov. dole people get a job and pay their own way. I am sick of it. VOTE EM all OUT 2012

William Z| 8.17.11 @ 10:00AM

When the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, I'll say it’s a done deal, and not before.

Trisha| 8.17.11 @ 10:02AM

I can only hope that the SCOTUS voids the entirety of this monstrosity known as Obamacare.

ds80| 8.18.11 @ 7:36AM

I can only hope we voters void the entirety of this monstrosity known as Obama.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 10:05AM

Grz,
Please excuse me for interrupting the discussion, but I was just over at "biggovernment" and someting dawned on me..............
RICK PERRY IS HAVING FUN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL!
In fact, he is having a blast! And...he has generated more quotes in Five days than the entire stable of Republicans have generated.....at all.
He sorta' reminds me of Reagan in that regard. He's having FUN at the expense of the liberals.

Uh PS; there are no "laws" of economic physics.
Have you read about "Freeholds" in my new novel yet? (www.americaalonesaidno.com )

We have a zillion specialty machine shops here in Texas. They are working two shifts...with a healthy backlog......in spite of the DC dead hands.

The only reason we have 8% unemployment is the huge numbers of new American immigrants from other States still settling in.
I do hope you and all the guys will keep up with youtube and Rick Perry.
My goodness, if Sarah gets in we are going to have a Paaaaartty!
The first thing either Rick r Sarah will do is de-fund Obamacare. Second they will begin firing thousands of regulators along with their regulation enforcement jerks.
Third, either of them will open the floodgates of domestic energy production...oil, gas, and nuclear.

Teaghan| 8.17.11 @ 10:45AM

What a cheerful and happy post! Thank You Ken!

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 4:29PM

I second that emotion. Well said, Ken.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 2:42PM

Bigot Margie.

Purpleguy| 8.17.11 @ 11:39AM

Yes, please, Perry and Palin ... please, oh, please. Quotes you all like - but 80% of America does not.

DKEN| 8.17.11 @ 1:29PM

80%? Lavenderboy, you can't get 80% of the people in America to agree on much of anything. Especially Obocare. Remember that 30% of the voters are diehard (and I mean that) conservatives. None of us want this tripe. Most of the Millenial generation don't want to be stuck paying for your HIV treatments, either.

idalily| 8.17.11 @ 4:13PM

Obama is at what level now? 39%. Yeah, that's stellar. You betcha.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 4:30PM

Rick Perry isn't just having fun on the campaign trail. He's demonstrating his inability to run a national campaign. Calling people whose policies you disagree with "treasonous" may sell well in Texas, but the rest of the country recognizes it for what it is: blustery cowboy BS.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:49PM

I like my steak done "Cardiac Special" at Ruth's Chris---soak in butter, serve bubbling and medium. Extra butter for the Mashed potatoes.

Just sayin'. ;)

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:34PM

Me, too, except I like it Rare.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 5:53PM

Tee hee, RCV,
Real men that shoot cayotes scare the crap out of you ball-point pen pushers don't they?
...Heh...
So do the ladies that shoot and gut deer like Sarah.

You deadly pen-pushers have had your day.
We are not "blustery". We are as real as death. Deal with it!

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:37PM

They don't scare us, Ken, they make us laugh. Just like guys who say, "Tee hee."

Sarah I just find thoroughly entertaining. She'd make a great neighbor. But she has no real interest in running for President: the job doesn't pay enough for her and involves too much work.

ds80| 8.18.11 @ 7:39AM

You just love your "way kewl" PC, huh, RCV.

martin j smith| 8.17.11 @ 10:12AM

One of my issues with the Lack of Republican Leadership is their lack of focus on Obamacare including the debt crisis negotiations. Their failure to speak loudly against this legislation --and that started from the moment it passed by the way, is telling and this troubles me. Obamacaare could mean as well the end of the Republican Brand ( there are other issues that can cause this as well ) and the need for a New Party.

DaveS| 8.17.11 @ 10:19AM

All branches of governmnet are sworn to uphold the Constitution. No Republican voted for it: for an assortment of reasons. Therefore, only others are violating their sworn duties. And many of them lawyers or having law-eductaed staff members? Expediency is the law - to them.

idalily| 8.17.11 @ 4:18PM

I agree that it's troubling they haven't spoken out more. But I think without the Senate or Presidency in Republican hands, the House is in a holding pattern, conserving their political capital at least until they see how the presidential primary shakes out. Let's face it, everyone, including the House, wants someone to LEAD, to TAKE CHARGE. Until that happens, I don't think they'll do much more than keep their fingers in the holes in the dam.

DaveS| 8.17.11 @ 10:17AM

What law school would brag that a judge upholding this aspect of the law came from their ranks?

DaveS| 8.17.11 @ 10:17AM

Should have said 'its ranks' - sorry.

Jocon307| 8.17.11 @ 10:27AM

If we want to get rid of Obamacare we are going to have to get rid of Obama and at least 4 Democrat Senators. 13 Senators would be better, but we need at least 4 for a majority. OK 3 would split it 50/50 and if we had a republican veep he/she would be the tie breaker.

So, we better quit whining, crying and wringing our hands. We need to vet and choose the various candidates and be prepared to give money, time, and effort to get them elected.

And anybody thinking about voting 3rd party or not voting better think again, and keep thinking until you get your mind right.

We cannot afford Obamacare or another 4 years of Democratic rule.

idalily| 8.17.11 @ 4:19PM

Yep. Which is why no matter who is chosen as the Republican candidate, we must turn out IN FORCE to vote for that person, even if it's not our preferred candidate. I will vote for Romney (shudder) if I have to. I don't like it, but I'll do it.

Oldefarte| 8.17.11 @ 10:29AM

As Peter rightly inferred, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS ['....But, of course, the clause was turned around long ago to justify federal regulation, now claimed by President Obama and the Democrats to do so without limit....'] !!!!!!!!

Jeremy Pitcoff| 8.17.11 @ 10:47AM

Call me a jingoist, but I believe that America is the greatest nation ever to inhabit the earth. The United States has created more wealth, spread more freedom and improved the human condition more than any other country in history. Notwithstanding the fact that these accomplishments are of near biblical proportion, they are not the result of divine intervention. They are the natural byproduct of a national faith that is rooted in individual liberty. American exceptionalism is directly attributable to the ideals of our nation’s founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is the American Gospel, the definitive moral blueprint of our nation. Man’s natural rights to freedom and liberty, to a government beholden to its people, and to the pursuit of commercial success, represent the founding tenets of our faith. The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate book of laws, created to guarantee these rights to our people.
In the summer of 1787, America’s Founding Fathers took great care to insure the ideals of the American Gospel in the U.S. Constitution. Their greatest concern was an inherent distrust of man’s tyrannical nature. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, was created to allay these fears. This crucial section clearly defines the limited powers of Congress. For 220 years, this central theme of the U.S Constitution has served the American people by confirming their rights as citizens.
Obama-Care, with regard to the Constitution, is a complete and abject failure. The individual mandate provision of this massive entitlement program clearly exceeds the limits of congressional authority. This mandate grants the federal government the power to coerce American citizens into purchasing a product (health insurance) or to impose a fine on those who do not. The Obama White House claims that this mandate is a necessary provision because it funds a greater good – that of national healthcare. It further claims that this act is justified under the commerce clause of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
The commerce clause reads as follows: “The Congress shall have power to… regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Hitherto, the interstate commerce clause has mainly been utilized to justify federal regulations on shipping and on trade, but never to force an individual into a commercial transaction. Commerce, by definition, is a transaction (sale or purchase) that has the objective of supplying a commodity (good or service). It is a wild stretch to interpret this clause as a justification of Congressional power to compel Americans into purchasing an arbitrary good or service. In fact, this interpretation of the commerce clause would effectively give the federal government limitless power under the Constitution. Freedom of commerce, the nucleus of American prosperity, would cease to be a precept of our faith. The Supreme Court will ultimately judge whether or not this misbegotten mandate is permissible under Constitutional law.
Human nature dictates that those who control the money, by default, control the people. Commercial activity, in the hands of the people, has enabled America to prosper. The people’s rights to commerce, religion and speech are inherent in the American Gospel. The limited power of our federal government is a core component of our faith. By implementing Obama-Care and its individual mandate, President Obama and Congress are attempting to violate the basic tenets of Americanism. If we allow our government unlimited power in the guise of national healthcare, America will lose it soul. We will need to abandon our national faith, and pray for divine intervention. Because a Supreme Court decision on this macabre issue will likely be several years in the making, the American people must fight for their faith, and elect representatives who will act to repeal this blasphemy. To borrow the words of another great faith, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 11:57AM

Jeremy....Well said, I would only hope that all the justices could read your post!

Jeremy Pitcoff| 8.17.11 @ 12:21PM

Thank you Mimi. Me too. In my heart, I believe that, when push comes to shove, the majority will vote against a limitless federal government. I mean, who wants to be known to posterity as the judge who destroyed America.

Trinacria| 8.17.11 @ 1:12PM

Well said, Jeremy, though I must respectfully disagree with your use of the present tense in your description of America as the greatest nation on the earth. A nation is defined by it's citizens, and when the citenzry so carelessly abdicates its responsibility and makes the profoundly unserious (and uninformed) decision that it did in November of 2008, well...one can no longer justifiably characterize them nor, by definition, their nation as great.

The historical record is clear - all great empires (Greek, Roman, British) crumble from within. Sadly, we're no different. While we may yet muster a last gasp or two, there's little hope for a citizenry/nation that has become so irredeemably stupid and lazy.

Jeremy Pitcoff| 8.17.11 @ 1:37PM

While I absolutely understand your skepticism about our future, have faith my friend. Our nation has been through tougher times than these, albeit not many, but we have always come back from the precipice bigger and better than before. America, every 60 years or so, tends to reinvent itself just when appears to be failing. If you have a chance, read something I wrote about this.. "To Secure These Rights" jeremypitcoff.blogspot.com

Trinacria| 8.17.11 @ 3:00PM

Thanks, brother. I hope you're right (rest assured I'd be delighted to be wrong)!

idalily| 8.17.11 @ 4:21PM

Personally, I wish we'd stop reinventing ourself and go back to being what we originally were (without slavery, of course)

Jeremy Pitcoff| 8.17.11 @ 8:24PM

I'll cheers to that.

Notary Sojac| 8.17.11 @ 11:15AM

The IPAB may not ever come to power, but unless something with an equivalent function does, the Medicare program has little more than a decade to live.

The demographics are inexorable: we cannot afford to provide the same level of care to the boomers and their descendents as we have to the existing and previous generation of retirees.

Medical services that the government provided to my parents will not be available to me; still less to my children.

Those who prefer to ignore the facts will continue to tap-dance by talking about "fraud and abuse" and pretending that we can achieve enough economic growth to offset the black hole of Medicare spending.

Wayne | 8.17.11 @ 11:28AM

So how do propose to do this. Do you decide to cut my mother off at 92 because she has lived a healthy life? Do you keep medicaid, but gut medicare? Sorry, but anything you suggests destroys this country.

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:51AM

The real question, Wayne, is what do YOU propose to do. The current welfare state is unsustainable. It's not just Medicare, it's the whole welfare state. Railing at Notary Sojac does not change the economics or the demographics. Usustainable. That's the word. Disagree? Great! Please explain how to sustain the massive welfare state we have now, let alone the expansion base on demographics. The demographics are not Notary Sojac's fault. We have promised more than we have. We have promised to steal from present and future producers what does not belong to us. Even if that weren't immoral (and it is) it just won't work. That is, until YOU can explain to us how to pay more than we have forever. We'll be civil. We're all ears. We're waiting.

Sorry, but continuing the present course destroys this country.

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 12:09PM

After the HORRIBLE term of the MOST liberal President in history is ended WE have an enormous job ahead to change this dreadful course we are on.
The Democratic/Leftist must be defeated and a very long TIME of ever having them in power again. They have yet to even admit the wrong they have done to this country both economical and smite of our very CONSTITUTION. They will never deserve any power after this blatent display of denying the rights of the PEOPLE!

Notary Sojac| 8.17.11 @ 3:45PM

I have a couple of thoughts on that!

(1) Offer to buy back any 60-70 year old's Medicare card for what they actually paid in plus 5% compound interest, with the proviso that they self-fund their health care for the rest of their lives. This should answer the "But I paid for it!!" crowd which unfortunately infests conservative circles almost as much as liberal. I doubt that one in ten will take the deal.

(2) Once total Medicare expenditures on a beneficiary exceed what he or she has paid in plus 5% compound interest, a "Medicare lien" should be placed against his/her estate for any additional expenses.

Both of these are first steps at solving the problem without beggaring our kids and grandkids. (btw, per my very rough calculation the most anyone could have paid into Medicare with interest is about $160,000)

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 4:05PM

I see some merit in # 2 but I also see some problems. What happens if the Midcare Lien placed against the estate is more than the estate is worth?

Notary Sojac| 8.17.11 @ 4:22PM

Well, then, the estate is zeroed out. Every dollar collected is a dollar in taxes spared.

YeloStalyn| 8.17.11 @ 5:02PM

LOVE IT... and would like to see it applied to SS as well.

actuarius| 8.18.11 @ 12:15PM

For many, currently, option one would be more expensive than paying out promised SS benefits. In my case, the accumulated amount of employee and employer FICA would pay a monthly benefit about 50% higher than SS is paying to me and my wife. I'd take it, but it won't save SS money.

actuarius| 8.18.11 @ 12:11PM

I'll take door number one, in a heartbeat if it includes the part paid from my employers to Medicare. That accumulated amount would be sufficient to pay $10,000 per year for each of my wife and me for the rest of our lives. Our $10,000 deductible major medical policy premium for both of us is $6,000 per year. 6% would represent a fairer interest rate, however.

Who Knows?| 8.17.11 @ 11:23AM

I’ve always thought Obamacare would eventually be rejected by the Supremes.

The analysis of both the law and the lawyers---aka the Supremes---seems spot on to me.

Here, though, is the scary thing---there still exist the lawyers who vote FOR it!

Sometimes I just wonder if the SCOTUS doesn’t work, in camera, a lot like the legislature, in that the outcome of any law or case is decided, between the deciders, and only THEN do they vote.

That is, in the House, say, the leader of a party will allow someone to vote against something they back, knowing they have enough OTHER votes to pass it. A safe vote, and all that.

Maybe something like this goes on for most cases in the SCOTUS.

I just wonder---if the majority of justices were like the hardest leftists now sitting, would they really okay Obamacare?

Wayne | 8.17.11 @ 11:29AM

Or one of the conservative justices could die before the cause comes to the Supreme Court.

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:54AM

Hence Obama's delaying tactics. It's a long shot, but for leftists, where there's the possibility of death, there's hope.

Al Adab| 8.17.11 @ 12:13PM

What the Supreme Court might rule is really beside the point. Do we just continue to defer to these unelected elites? No. Instead can we ask the Republican candidates which of them will commit wholeheartedly to the repeal of this abomination? Unless that is accomplished the entire debate is rather academic is it not?

J.C.Eaton| 8.17.11 @ 10:52PM

You are right my man. We have submitted to rule by 9 oligarchs unelected for life. A far more dangerous situation than even Obamarule.

idalily| 8.17.11 @ 4:22PM

This is the scenario that keeps me up at night.

Prediction| 8.17.11 @ 11:38AM

Obamacare will go down 9 to 0.

Any member of the Supreme Court who heretofore has been a reliable vote for leftwing agendas, including Roe v Wade, MUST be like Nixon, in that they have to be thinking about what their place in history will be, after they die.

The key thing to remember about leftwing members of the SCOTUS is that they are CLEVER!

That means that they usually can read the tea leaves, and in most cases take the “other side” of the issue, knowing full well that they don’t have the votes to pass it.

However, when it comes to Obamacare and all of its entanglements, including death panels, which is IMHO surely the most egregious example of the eternally returning ways socialists try to overturn the U.S. Constitution, perhaps we face a bright line case.

Thus, it could be that even the far left members of that august group of lawyers called the SCOTUS will realize that Obamacare is a true legal bridge too far, and say---

ENOUGH!!!

In any case, wouldn’t it be a hoot, and a total knife into Obama’s presidency, if it was rejected unanimously?

It certainly should be!

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 12:08PM

I often wonder if they will simply reject it as payback for Obama's public scolding of them. Wouldn't that be priceless.

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 12:20PM

They are too esteemed and intellectual and decent to take Revenge on an Ignorant President!
All we can HOPE and expect is the very best judgement and faithfulness to the Constitution by ALL the Justices. The 9-0 is not a pipe dream it could be what the SCOTUS decides....AMEN!!!

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 12:58PM

Tell that to Justice Alito

Michael Tomlinson| 8.17.11 @ 1:14PM

They will strike it down (if they get to it before the next Republican House, Senate and President in 2013), because it is unconstitutional.

Hopefully, they look at Roe v. Wade in the future too.

Trinacria| 8.17.11 @ 1:22PM

With all due respect, any argument that proceeds from the premise that Kagan, Ginnsberg, and Sottomayor are clever is, by definition, a profoundly flawed argument.

Prediction| 8.17.11 @ 6:29PM

Allow me to clarify "clever"---

Bill Clinton was "clever", aka "slick".

So, by the use of that word, "clever", I was trying to indicate that leftists are "too clever by half", as the hoary saying goes.

Perhaps "sophisticated", which stems from "sophistry", would be a better word.

Leftists THINK they are so smart, that they just can't be straightforward when facing a "complicated" world. Indeed, for them current reality is such a mess of morally equivalent complications, that they value what they take to be their superior ability to see both sides of ANYTHING.

Whereas, when it comes to Obamacare, it seems to me that we have the latest attempt to obfuscate, but in truth the options are SIMPLE!

Either choose individual freedom and limited government, embodied and gifted to us by the U.S. Constitution, or "cleverly" string out words in order to grow more government and reduce individual freedom.

Anyway, leftists-socialists-communalists et al are either fools or knaves.

Those who know what they are doing will make things worse for OTHER people while THEY gain from this are knaves---people like Chuck Schumer, Obama, etc.

And, most of their supporters, who don't get it, who are actually UNKNOWINGLY being ripped off, are simply suicidal fools.

Another prediction---the new word soon to become famous is: EPIPHANY.

I remember when oxymoron swept the nation, maybe back in the 80's.

Well, hopefully, when the real spit hits the fan, and those who aren't totally fooled make the connection between what knaves like Obama and his team do and their own worsening situation, myriad light bulbs will turn on in heretofore dim bulbed brains.

We CAN always hope---yes, we can.

George S| 8.17.11 @ 11:41AM

Is social security constitutional? A very good argument can be made that Congress never had the power to lay taxes with the intent to transfer money to other people, but maybe -- maybe -- has the power pool mandatory contributions from payrolls in order to create a retirement trust. Maybe. However, once the trust ran out, it became taxation. Based on that, would any of the Supremes even dare rule social security unconstitutional today?

If ObamaCare is too entrenched by the time SCOTUS gets it, I predict the following will happen:

The law will be returned to the Congress instructing them that a mandate is unconstitutional but a tax is not. SCOTUS will say it cannot comment on the structure of the law but would have no problem if the mandate is renamed "TAX". Congress would then have to reword the law.

That is our best hope, but it will be only as good as there are enough Republicans who will never amend the law. However, seeing how Boehner and Company are scared of being blamed for imaginary insults to Independents, once ObamaCare starts doling out benefits it will become politically tough for RINOs and others to stick by their guns.

Either way, the outlook is dim through the Courts. The LAW MUST BE REPEALED! in order for us to escape its death panels.

buckeyeman| 8.17.11 @ 11:56AM

"Is social security constitutional?"

No.

YeloStalyn| 8.17.11 @ 3:19PM

Correct. But will any court say so?

No.

However, it does suprise me that for being the "smartest" president we've ever had, Zero hasn't argued that there is very little difference between mandated healthcare (a pool of money used to fund the medical expenses of the populace) and mandated retirement (the current form of SS being a pool of money used to fund the retirement costs of the populace).

Name one instance in US history where the government ever came back and said, "Whoops... we shouldn't have done that! It gave us too much power!"

We're screwed unless we can change the make up of DC in a substaintal way next election.

Ezra B.| 8.17.11 @ 12:00PM

"Articles of Incorporation"? Woops. I think you mean "Articles of Confederation."

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 12:05PM

Peace, my brothers.
The second ammendment still stands......and so do fifty million of us.
God bless America.

The RCVs of the country fume at us, but their ball-point pens will not suffice. In the final analysis they cannot "lawfare" us into serfdom.

RCV and his ilk must have never watched the numberless westerns where the "law" became corrupt...and the good guys blew their ---t away.

We patriotic Americans have shown enormous patience with the communists, (pardon the shorthand), and the wimpy Republican opposition.

Our patience does have limits though. The RCVs have slimed their way into their hoped for nomenklatura... heh heh heh... but the Russian peasants never had repeating weapons.

The RCVs are merely terrorists with a ball-point pen.

George S| 8.17.11 @ 12:17PM

It stood by just one vote. Just goes to show what would happen if Obama gets to replace an original jurist on the Supreme Court. We are still deep in the woods of this nightmare.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 2:01PM

Hitting the bottle again early again, huh Ken? You can always tell because the weapons come out and are used with abandon.

You have a Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." The minute you use one, sir, you'd better be prepared to exercise your Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights that we afford all criminal defendants, because you will need them.

You are, as always, an entertaining blowhard. And I'm as much a "communist" as you are a New Yorker.

idalily| 8.17.11 @ 4:25PM

I believe there were a bunch of Tories in Boston whose thinking was along this line. They were wrong. They lost.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 4:33PM

On the contrary. The people are in charge of this government. And as we showed in 1860 and would do so again, we don't cotton to secessionist traitors. Sam Adams himself advocated swift and summary justice for those who would challenge the Republic by force of arms during Shay's Rebellion. We'll be happy to do the same to anyone who wants to test National resolve on this score.

YeloStalyn| 8.17.11 @ 5:06PM

Every revolution is done by criminals... no one suggests otherwise. BUT... who will try them under a system that no longer exists if they win? The crown didn't try the founders... because when they lost they had no authority any longer. The same is said for any revolution. Once the government no longer respects the people, we are obligated to replace it. Once that option fails, we are obligated to revolt against it. But to revolt against a government, by difinition, means to reject its laws and authority in an attempt to climb above them and institute a new way that is "better" (where better is often decided by the winner... and isn't always better for everyone although that is the hope of a justified revolution... as in the case of the colonies versus the crown).

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:40PM

Be my guest, YeloStalyn.

YeloStalyn| 8.18.11 @ 11:23AM

We're both rational... neither of us WANT revolution. But the difference between those who love freedom versus those who love control is that those who love freedom are WILLING to revolt as a last resort.

Thankfully... we're not there. But those who love control seem to be trying to get us there as fast as possible and, like you, don't seem to take stock in the idea that some men would rather die than be subjects.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.17.11 @ 5:10PM

I don't bother with silly being so stupid, and such a liar, I am too much of an idiot to realize Sam Adams was advocating swift justice of douchebag asswipes such as myself, for supporting the brutal murder of over 54 million innocent, defenseless, unborn Americans, and for supporting the theft of the fruits of the labor of the productive Americans who somehow escaped brutal murder supported by gutless pantywaists such as myself, on Sam Adams would be just one of the Founders who would despise me matters.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:43PM

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."
Samuel Adams

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.17.11 @ 7:06PM

I don't bother with silly Samuel Adams quotations, like "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain meaning of Words!", and how these quotations apply to my positions on abortion and redistribution of wealth, as a devout churchgoing Christian expert on real love, compassion, and especially, the Bible, and also as an expert lawyer on, especially, the Constitution, on sanctimoniously espousing words matters.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 7:10PM

Oh, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.17.11 @ 7:22PM

I don't bother with silly other quotations of Samuel Adams, such as, "If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country shall stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin", or, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds", not to mention "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can", on being so stupid, and such a liar, I simply cannot understand I am on the wrong side, at this historic time, as I sanctimoniously pervert words, as a tyrannical tool matters.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 10:18PM

Man up, Skip, and stop hiding under Vomitus, as appropriate as the name is for you.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.18.11 @ 12:25PM

I don't bother with silly manning up on who, exactly, it is who has posted as 'Liberal Reader', on manning up on who else, besides 'Liberal Reader', has the poster of these exalted initials also posted under matters?

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 4:12PM

I have never made a single post under any name but "RCV"... unlike you, Skip.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.19.11 @ 1:49PM

I don't bother with silly Constitutional Republic matters, with the benefit of 35 years practicing Constitutional law, which has obviously provided the wisdom to, at least, belong to a party that cares about the tyranny of Democracy, having devoted my life, at least, to the study of the words of the Founding Fathers, on, at least, pondering the over / under, of regular readers that, at least, democratically doubt I have never made, at least, a single post under any name, including, at least, 'Liberal Reader', other than under these exalted initials, matters.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 5:00PM

Hey, RCV
Not " the weapons come out and are used with abandon."
The weapons have not come out, simply friendly reminders that they can...when your little ball-point weapon of mass destruction goes one step too far.
Right now, I'm having fun watching Governor Perry "shoot" cayotes like you.
...Simply friendly reminders...you are not bullet-proof, you communist dog.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:45PM

They're "coyotes", Ken. Even those of us in California know that, because we shoot them, too, even here in Los Angeles, where they come down from the hills.

I have little worry about windbag old fools like you, you fascist coyote,

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 12:22PM

2025 America. Back to the Future.
A page torn from a history book in 2025....

The mandate part of the Obamacare law was struck down by the supreme court in late 2012 though the Obamacare Law essentially remained intact with the help of the GOP who did nothing in the commencing years to dismantle it. It was argued at the time that the Law was now compliant with the constitution. It was no longer a mandated program but a voluntary one.

Small and large businesses were no longer required to provide health insurance and waivers were dispensed with. Business lobbyist no longer raised any objections and were content. The feds in 2014 began the federal health insurance coop exchanges where citizens lacking insurance could purchase it or purchase a private plan in the market. Unfortunately these private plans became so expensive ( average cost 25,000 dollars a year, 2014 dollars) that only the wealthy, CEO's and corporate management could afford them. Government workers remained on their cadillac plans as it was argued that this would be more cost effective than changing the system. Their plans, however, were held by private insurers at tax payers expense. The vast amount of employees were thrown off their corporate health benefit plans by their employers and were advised to either choose the fed exchange program or purchase private insurance.

Private insurers were particularly happy
because they no longer carried the high risk populations but rather the wealthy who are
statistically heathier and more capable of paying large premiums. Most Americans by default chose the federal exchanges and then were subsequently taxed at high rates to pay not only for themselves but also support the aged and illegals.

Medicare collasped as predicted two years earlier than predicted and was slated to be phased out anyway due to the transfer of billions from this program to the federal exchange. All other regulations in the 2000 page bill were incrementally executed whereby the public did not object as the implementation phase was much like the frog in water. The fed now essentially controls 80 percent of the health care industry and is now taking in trillions of dollars through taxation that they have used to fund their many endeavors to serve the public.

Pretty close? What is your prediction?

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 12:28PM

BTW, that "history" does not have to be written like that, you have the power to change it.

DKEN| 8.17.11 @ 1:40PM

I agree completely. By next year there is no telling how many more conservatives may be added to the machinery. If you take what people actually believe regarding the issues in the USA almost nobody is a liberal. They just still vote that way out of habit or out of ignorance. The news/entertainment establishment will not educate their customers. The citizens of America need to be educated. Which party believes what and which side do you agree with? When faced with a decision the public will swing wildly Republican if the Republicans are truly Conservative and don't flinch when asked about their views.

Oldefarte| 8.17.11 @ 2:51PM

ST: If this [The mandate part of the Obamacare law was struck down by the supreme court in late 2012 though the Obamacare Law essentially remained intact with the help of the GOP who did nothing in the commencing years to dismantle it] were truth, then why is it that Republicans are the ONLY ones now fighting/campaigning against it [and stating it primary REPEAL after their political victories next year], while Democrats are the originators/implementors of this insane piece of WELFARE? If this prediction-opinion becomes true, then most of us had better bend over and kiss our rear-ends good-bye, because if fully implemented [assuming an Obama re-election co-incidentally of course], then this country will become another Europe [which is now dying a lslow death economically]. The intention of this welfaric health insurance is simply to shift the coverage from the seniors to the twenty year old population...the only problem with same is that the seniors have mostly PRE-PAID FOR THROUGH PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS THEIR PREMIUMS, whereas the snot-nosers have paid excrement [and never will, since you have to have a job in order to payroll deduct pay for it]!!!!

Mike| 8.17.11 @ 12:31PM

Your articles are always top-notch, however you (as well as The Wall Street Journal) show a lack of attention to detail. While you correctly refer to Frank as her (!), you've got her last name incorrect. It is Hull. Names are special, Mr. Ferraro. Sorry about the recent death of your wife.

Bill| 8.17.11 @ 12:43PM

It's good to see that there's common sense among the justices of the 11th Circuit in that they don't include NOT acting commercially within the meaning of commercial action.

What effect might this point of view, if adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court, have on the authority of Wickard v. Filburn?

Danny Z.| 8.17.11 @ 1:04PM

A question for all those responding. I happened to watch Greta interview Pam Bondi(Florida AG) about this case. Both of them being lawyers, they were talking that Obama's people could have this postponed so the Supreme Court wouldnt review this case till 2013(after the election).
Can anyone shed some light on this. I guess what provides them the opportunity to do that? You know that is what they will do.
Thanks all!

Solo| 8.17.11 @ 2:07PM

The Obama administration could request a full review by the entire 11th Circuit. A 3 judge panel made this current ruling.

The interesting part (or infuriating part- depending on your perspective) is that it was the Obama Administration who specifically requested the 3-judge review in the first place.

This was tactical, I'm sure. IF they got a favorable ruling, then no big deal. If not...they could then create a delay by requesting the full review.

They desperately want to delay this issue until after the election.

Kenneth McKenna| 8.17.11 @ 1:06PM

It's Frank Mays HULL, not "Hall!"

And, yes, Judge Hull is a WOMAN. A woman named "Frank."

A woman judge appointed by Bill Clinton co-wrote the opinion demolishing ObamaCare. Wow. Great. Who cares that the opinion gets the whole "severability" argument wrong? When she's right, she's right.

Purple Lips| 8.17.11 @ 1:44PM

The question remains, if SCOTUS declares ObamaCare unconstitutional, will it concern only the Individual Mandate? How narrow will be the ruling. To get Justice Kennedy on board, the opinion may have to be so narrow that it keeps ObamaCare intact, but without the Individual Mandate.

If that's the case, ObamaCare will survive. Repealing it in Congress will be much more difficult than one thinks. HHS has already written thousands of pages of new regulations; thousands of new bureaucrats have been hired, and most states are moving to follow the new guidelines. Does anyone think that there will not be a sizeable number of GOP lawmakers that will attempt to "fix ObamaCare" instead of repealing it? Do not thinnk for a moment that a President Perry or Romney would actually use thier political capital in repealing it.

Mimi| 8.17.11 @ 2:01PM

They Better!

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 2:02PM

The individual mandate is the only provision found unconstitutional by this circuit court.

Curtis Rasmussen| 8.17.11 @ 6:13PM

There is no severability clause. The whole law must be thrown out if any portion of it is ruled unconstitutional.

People like RCV hope that the courts will not follow the rule of law in this case and give them their freebies at the expense of all taxpayers.

Curtis Rasmussen| 8.17.11 @ 6:14PM

There is no severability clause. The whole law must be thrown out if any portion of it is ruled unconstitutional.

People like RCV hope that the courts will not follow the rule of law in this case and give them their freebies at the expense of all taxpayers.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:48PM

No, Curtis, as I said in another post today, I thought the Circuit Court was wrong in not striking down the entire law if they thought the individual mandate was unconstitutional (which it is not). Congress would never have passed the bill without it, and that to me mandates the result I speak of. But that's only one of many things wrong with this sloppy decision.

Bill| 8.17.11 @ 2:06PM

"Don't fix it, deep six it!"

Solo| 8.17.11 @ 2:16PM

Romney has stated that, if elected, his first executive order will be to issue an exemption to all 50 states.

Any President could also make it extremely awkward to implement Obamacare at HHS. The new Secretary at Health and Human Services could torpedo the effort towards implementation in a myriad of ways.
Plus...a republican Congress, by simple majority in both Houses, could de-fund every aspect of Obamacare in the budget thus letting it wither on the vine. (Budget legislation is not subject to fillibuster).

George S| 8.17.11 @ 2:48PM

Easier said than politically done. How do you think the media will portray any Republican who is about to take away health care from "millions" who "previously" could "not afford it"? Think of all the stories on The Children about to be denied medical coverage. No elected representative can stand that kind of pressure (think back to any mention of social security reform equated to fine dining on dog food).

Once ObamaCare starts doling out benefits it is game over. That's why the Obama Administration is on a break neck track to getting the law to take roots and ignoring all rulings on the law. They know exactly what they are doing and history backs them up.

By the way, how did Boehner, Cantor and McConnell handle the first phase of funding of ObamaCare during their much hyped budget cutting and then on the debt fiasco? They didn't even touch it. Not a good sign going forward, is it?

Purple Lips| 8.17.11 @ 4:11PM

That is exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. Mark Steyn is a prophet on this one. He said back in 2009 that if ObamaCare becomes law that it would be near impossible to repeal. And we should remember that it was the Stupak 5 that made it law.

Of course, near impossible isn't impossible. It's just that we don't have the kind of politicians that can take the heat. I don't care if Mitt or Perry, or Bachman wins, and the GOP takes the Senate big-time and increases its House majority. The first inclination of today's politician once the heat is turned on is to "cut a deal, any deal". And that deal will favor the Dems and Progressives.

Tex Expatriate| 8.17.11 @ 2:13PM

A good analysis with just one problem: "The bottom line takeaway from this decision is that if this is how Judges Hull, Dubina, Hudson, and Vinson, appointed by Presidents Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan view the Commerce Clause analysis of the Obamacare individual mandate, then this is how Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts are going to view it also." Unfortunately, Justice Kennedy cannot be counted on to do the rational thing.

Purple Lips| 8.17.11 @ 4:13PM

Kennedy may sign on with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. But for his vote, he may demand to write the opinion. And if he does, he will rule in such narrow language as to keep ObamaCare alive to see another day.

YeloStalyn| 8.17.11 @ 3:28PM

Maybe TX ough to exercise its right to form several states, which would in essence boost our numbers in the Senate. Maybe even the House since each state gets at least one Rep... depending on how the population was divided out I guess.
Anyhow... they could, if they were so inclined and if the numbers were close enough after the election, take control of Congress for the people this way.

Granted, it would take some time... but I would wager that they could do it as quickly as they please. I don't know if the fed has any means to stop or slow it down.

That's just me day dreaming though...

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 4:36PM

There's no such right. In fact, it's expressly barred by the Constitution: Article IV, section 3 provides: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State...".

Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 4:55PM

Did not know that, interesting. Then how did they divide states up in the past to form new states? Or was that only dividing territories to make new states?

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 5:00PM

It was dividing territories, which is clearly permissible. I'll have to do some research on what they did about West Virginia. I imagine that since Virginia was in rebellion, it was deemed not violative of the Constitution for part of the state to remain in the Union.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 5:11PM

RCV,
I thought you were a lawfarist. Of course Texas has the right to divide into five States with ten Senators.
...or we would not have re-joined the Union after the war of northern aggression. See, we were the ONLY State guaranteed the right of seccession.

You are very ignorant, you know?

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:50PM

Read the Constitution, Ken. It's quite clear.

If it were up to me, I'd make an exception to my inviolability of the Union for Texas. I'd love to see it leave. I'll miss Austin, but that's about it.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:58PM

...and you might see YeloStalyn's post below, which actually has verifiable facts in it.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 5:04PM

Answer: upheld by the Supreme Court 6-3 in Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 US 39 (1871). Pretty convoluted analysis, but in the wake of the Civil War, pretty predictable.

DaveD| 8.17.11 @ 5:05PM

Yeah, well, ask Virginians about West Virginia.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:51PM

see above.

YeloStalyn| 8.17.11 @ 5:28PM

yes... and no.

I had to go look it up.

When TX first joined the Union, they were granted said power by the US Congress as a part of their annexation from Mexico and that the state of Texas, along with up to four other states, would be granted admittion in adherence to the Constitution.

BUT... you're still right because it became a moot point (somethign I was unaware of), when Texas was RE-admitted to the Union after the Civil War. At that point, the NEW admittance did not contain such a provision.

So thanks for at least getting me to look it up and find that you're right... even if for a different reason.

And to be honest... it may have been that had TX never left, and attempted to seperate it may have gone to the SCOTUS to decide at which point, they may have backed the argument you just posted above... or they may have honored the agreement between Congress and a sovereign nation (Texas).

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:53PM

The Civil War changed a lot, including most Americans' view of the United States as an indivisible Union instead of a collection of states. The post Civil War amendments (13 - 17) changed forever the structure and nature of our federal government, like them are not.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.17.11 @ 7:34PM

I don't bother with silly perverting words, by ignoring that amendments are not necessarily 'forever', as readers may be legally enjoying alcoholic beverages, right now, even as they are reading this, on the stupidity, on the dishonesty, and on the idiocy, of sanctimoniously espousing that just because abortion and redistribution of wealth are 'legal' right now, that means it has to be forever, like it or not, on this being just another very, very, very good reason Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus highlights these perverted words, of a, possibly evil, tyrannical tool, like it or not, matters.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 9:21PM

Zzzzzzzzzzz ......

Solo| 8.17.11 @ 5:12PM

I'm sure the State of West Virginia would be shocked to learn that.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:59PM

See above.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:55PM

It hurts me to see two people that I like go at each pother hammer and tong.

I think RCV is wrong about many things, and he gives the O way too much slack, but I don't think he's evil, particularly on the most important issue that faces us, where he is quite right, like Scoop Jackson.

Ken is one of the nicest people I have blogged to---an absolute nice guy in his private life.

Can we disagree nicely guys? Believe it or not, RCV, if you actually KNEW who Ken is and what he does, you would seriously be in awe of him, as I am. And Ken, RCV can take a joke.

I mean, guys, we're not Clints.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:55PM

If Ken could just learn to have a discussion without calling people names or threatening them, he'd be an approachable human being. I'm open to the thought that off-line he's a helluva guy, but I have no interest whatsoever in finding that out.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.17.11 @ 7:44PM

I don't bother with silly sanctimonious hypocrisy of name calling, to someone I accuse to being drunk and alcholic, on the approachability of human beings, who I abhor, for sanctimonious tea party conservatism, because they are wholly lacking in intelligence, and are wholly lacking in not only real Christian love but in compassion, who espouse dangerous know-nothing nonsense policies for the nation, because they come from poor, and lowly educated, areas of the country, not to mention the approachability of human beings not allowed to exist, at least AFTER they're born, at least partially, matters.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 9:22PM

Zzzzzzzzzzz ....

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.11 @ 6:18PM

Aw hell!
If Texas left the Union... the rest of the States would implode.
In spite of our drought, Texas is INDEPENDENT.

Without Texas as an escape valve...the US would be sunk.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 6:57PM

See my thoughts on that above. Texas in my view is still largely Northern Mexico, and hell, you guys could shoot it out with the drug cartels and the rest of us would be quite happy.

I sure do like Austin, though. My wife is a fan of Bat Conservation International, and we go down there from time to time to watch them take off from the Congress Street bridge.

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:30PM

A little i-candy for my friends, OT, Margie, OF, Ken and all. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:32PM

sorry,
this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 9:16PM

That's the best kind of "entertainment" to be had.

Here's another great quote from the great Thomas Jefferson:

"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread."

p.s. Thanks!

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 2:45PM

Bigot Margie.

19th Nervous Breakdown| 8.17.11 @ 6:59PM

Pace James Taranto in his Best of the Web blog at the WSJ today---

The five stages gone through by someone who is told they are going to die---that's all of us!---could well be employed with respect to all the killing actions going on in D.C.

Why, it would be interesting to analyse even the comments on this blog and try to categorize them.

Actually, the prevailing attitude of people on the left could be one of the final stage---acceptance.

That is, they KNOW they are dying, and therefore spend their last days grabbing all the gusto they can.

And, the hell with vital youngsters, despite one's chronological age!

Death, be not proud.

Happily, at least for those who've lived mostly loving lives, death is just a change of act.

What else do you do with worn out shoes?

Play on in your new body---what a model!

Me, I'll---as me---always go for the 1955 models, especially the Ford and Chevy, but also the Chrysler products!

soljerblue| 8.17.11 @ 7:02PM

Assuming for a moment that the individual mandate is rejected by the Supremes. If the rest of the law, or a significant part of it, survives, would that not leave a tremendous amount of executive power in the hands of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius? And would she not be able to wield that power to do tremendous damage to the health care system, and the personal liberty of us all?

I would like Mr. Ferrera to address that at some point.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 7:14PM

What Congress would replace the individual mandate with is what it should have replaced it with in the first place -- a public insurance option.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.17.11 @ 8:02PM

I don't bother with silly perverting words, such as 'public insurance option', when James Madison, in Federalist Paper #45, clearly stated "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite", on yet another Samuel Adams tyrannical tool example matters.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 9:23PM

Zzzzzzzzzzz ....

JayDick| 8.18.11 @ 7:28AM

You make obvious your disdain for the Constitution.

If the mandate is struck down but the rest of Obamacare survives, it will be easier for Congress to repeal the whole monstrosity, which is what is needed.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 11:19AM

Not sure I understand how what I said is "disdain for the Constitution"? If the SCOTUS declares the individual mandate unconstitutional, I will fully accept and respect that ruling. I practiced constitutional law for 35 years and revere our Constitution, which to me is the most brilliant document of political organization ever devised by man.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.18.11 @ 1:11PM

I don't bother with silly this is the epitome of a sanctimonious post providing the reason I am so stupid, and such a liar, as I, once again, for the umpteenth time, sanctimoniously espouse my Constititutional credentials, and Constitutional sanctimonious reverence, while not bothering to mention my sanctimonious support of the party, that simply will not cease, the brutal murders of 54 MILLION innocent, defenseless, American human beings, even if these innocent, defenseless Americans are PARTIALLY born, on not bothering to mention, my sanctimonious support of, still, to this very day, the anointed one, the party leader, as today, yet again, an average of 3,836 innocent, defenseless, Americans are brutally murdered, same as every other day, since the first month of 1973, which I sanctimoniously support, while sanctimoniously espousing my profound, respectful, devoted veneration for, the Constitution, of which I am sanctimonious expert, not bothering to mention, at least this sanctimonious post, silly being a sanctimonious devout, sanctimonious churchgoing, sanctimonious expert, on real Christian love, this being, exactly, the reason I am a pathetic, and despicable, douchebag asswipe, sanctimoniously morally unprincipled sanctimonious reprobate, sanctimoniously fraudulently deceiving sanctimonious charlatan, sanctimoniously ejecting sanctimonious vomitus, being, probably, just simply evil, sanctimoniously, matters.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 4:10PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.18.11 @ 10:11PM

I don't bother with silly, ho hum, 54 million abortions, as devout churchgoing Christian, and Constitutional expert, on those 54 million who have been aborted just bore me, as my posts show, matterzz....

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 10:48PM

No, you bore me, Skip.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.19.11 @ 1:37PM

I don't bother with silly boring skip, at least, Skippy, I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born, and, at least, I also belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're partially born, too, on what excites me is, devout matters, and churchgoing matters, and real Christian love matters, and compassion matters, and 35 years of practicing Constitutional law matters, on these but a few of my favorite matters matters.

PCP Smoker| 8.17.11 @ 7:39PM

What is concerning, as Limpaw mentioned, is that the individual mandate is a means to raise revenues. Control of the insurance market is firmly on government's hands, specifically the secretary of HHS. Assuming they strike the individual mandate but not the entire bill, government run health care is still the order of the day.

Berita Sulut| 8.17.11 @ 8:23PM

I can't say I'm not shocked to learn that.

Health care, constitution, law, then comes...

The Tea Party Rebellion!

dude| 8.17.11 @ 9:38PM

Hahaha no way is obamacare going down :) . republicans can't stop it, and supreme court will decide in it's favor. I love laughing at all the republicans trying to take it down.

shipley130| 8.18.11 @ 1:16AM

Why are you so interested in the government forcing everyone to buy something?

Sara| 8.17.11 @ 10:58PM

My friend was a welfare queen of low education and high expectations, but it seems to me that Obama holds that very same POV.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.ainibag.com

Mike| 8.17.11 @ 11:12PM

They desperately want to delay this issue until after the election.
http://www.jerseys-hats-store.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com

shipley130| 8.18.11 @ 1:13AM

Would the treatment of HIV be slashed under the guiding eye of the Death Panel? I think George Bernard Shaw would be enjoying all of this.

POST American| 8.18.11 @ 1:41AM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

AS just days ago we learn yet another person
on our modest little suburban street has contracted a bizarre,
very lethal cancer.

AGAIN, someone not very old (54), a
clean living family sort.

AGAIN, we MUST focus on the infamous
Salk weaponized EUGENICS Polio vaccine
administered in childhood --loaded with
simian virus 40 which sleeps in your RNA
until your hormones change.

Of course the Rock-F--L--O/ROT-child
EUGENICS front MUST be held accountable
--esp. with their current Gates front OP virulently
pushing whole shopping carts of RED China manufactured,
dead pre-natal infant flesh cultured, 'helping' needles.

--------------HUAC/NUREMBERG 2012-------------

-----------tick

-----------------------tick

------------------------------------tick

L. Severus Pertinax| 8.18.11 @ 4:46AM

"...And the board is even shielded from executive oversight."
How about bullets?
It will come to that, I am sure.

Tenn Slim| 8.18.11 @ 8:59AM

While Maxine Waters, Black caucus leader, and others bemoan the UN employment figures, while EPA, USDA, DOE, continue thier war on the Private sector of GNP, the Supreme Court waits till almost the due dates for much of OBAMACARE to be implemented.
Point is, the INFRA structure for the demise of the USA is continuing, regardless of SCOTUS actions. The cement around the legs of the US ELectorate is hardening.
2012 election may well seem to be the Line in the sand, but while we are figuring out which shovel to draw the line with, the Left is fast spinning thier webs of control.
The Left will not go quietly into the night.
Believe NOT the Leftist Winds of concern. Read Saul ALynksi, Read Masters of Deciet, the Progressives are steadily but surely, gaining ground to the Red Zone of success.
Semper FI

Limbo| 8.18.11 @ 10:33AM

Obamacare gives some valuable lessons about how the political left operates.

1) Lies can be sustained for a very long time if you have a sympathetic media. In this case, a sampling of the lies include: Obamacare will reduce the deficit, it will decrease your cost of obtaining healthcare, you will be able to keep your current insurance, and there won't be rationing/death panels.

2) Lies only have to be sustained long enough to implement the leftist agenda. Once the agenda is in place, the legislation is written in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to repeal or dismantle.

This is the classic leftist way, and one of the only ways they can implement their agenda. Telling the truth is not possible because it would show the agenda for what it is, and would be extremely unpopular (even with the lies, Obamacare is very unpopular) and near impossible to implement.

Leftists are like used car salesmen, they just need to have the lies believed until the contract is signed and becomes irrevocable.

bruce| 8.18.11 @ 4:58PM

hey peter, as for the healthcare law going down.donn;t count your chickens before they hatch. till it;s ruled on by the high court,all these law suits are a mere dog and pony show.

jjheinis| 8.18.11 @ 5:15PM

neo-Conservatives fail to realize that health-care is the albatross hung across the nation's collective neck. The population is getting older and will need more and more medical care at a constantly skyrocketing cost for which there is no control. Needless to say, they fail to look at the elephant in the room: military spending which is constantly off-the-table. America has no need to police the world, it is not the replacement of the British empire. We need to spend this money AT HOME where it will benefit the nation as a whole. America is the magnet for immigration from India (Patel Hotel), Pakistan, the native American lands of Mexico and Central America. What is left for the Anglos? Walmart whose production is outsourced to China? Promote our national security state? Lindbergh stated "America first" not "Me first". Why not do this here. Stop worshiping the Constitution and ALL OF US, DO WHAT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA AS A WHOLE!!!

Long Ben| 8.20.11 @ 1:29PM

When this and perhaps more numerous cases on obamacare come to the Supreme Court , if Elena Kagan does not go recuse herself , she should be empeached for bad behaviour .

Kris Lounsbury| 8.26.11 @ 5:36PM

Good job of explaining this Obama Care fiasco! And praise God for the safeguards we have in the Constitution.

Steve| 9.8.11 @ 9:20AM

The Supreme Court is NOT the final authority on the Constitution, the States are. The Supreme court is part of the Federal government, dependent on the other two branches of the Federal government for their salaries and benefits. Thomas Jefferson addressed this in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "... the government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers ..."