-
Delivering Serbs to the Wolves
May 21, 2013 | 17 comments
-
The Perils of Intervention in Syria
May 7, 2013 | 37 comments
-
America on Welfare
April 25, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Thursday Is Tax Freedom Day
April 17, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Time for Real Federalism
April 8, 2013 | 23 comments
A Further Perspective
Obamacare Heads to the Supreme Court
Do any substantive powers remain beyond the federal government? We will soon enough find out.
When Congress was pushing through President Barack Obama’s plan to nationalize health care decision-making, legislators gave little thought to the Constitution. After all, the denizens of Capitol Hill had grown accustomed to passing whatever laws they desired, with the expectation that, if necessary, compliant courts would fashion another magical legal doctrine or two to justify Congress’ action. Naturally, all of the president’s men and their allies dismissed the legal cases filed against Obamacare after it became law.
However, the advocates of government-controlled medicine are no longer laughing. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week struck down an essential part of the legislation. This evens the score, balancing an earlier decision by the Sixth Circuit to uphold the vast expansion of federal power. In the latest case, Judge Frank Hull, a Democratic appointee, voted with Chief Judge Joel Dubina to overturn the legislation.
The substantive sections of the majority opinion in State of Florida, et al., vs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services run roughly 150 pages, making it the longest and most detailed decision yet. As such, noted my Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro, the “ruling shows that the constitutional issues raised by the healthcare reform — and especially the individual mandate — are complex, serious, and non-ideological.”
The decision obviously will affect Americans’ health care. But the more basic issue is whether there remains any limit to the reach of the federal government. The Framers viewed the national government as having important but only limited and enumerated powers. That is, Washington was an island of government authority in an ocean of individual liberty.
Over the years the courts have gutted constitutional doctrines intended to limit state power and justified almost any government action unless barred by the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Commerce Clause, which authorizes federal regulation of commerce “among the several states,” has been interpreted to largely swallow up Article 1, Section 8, which enumerates Congress’s authority. The ocean became one of government power, with but a few islands of personal freedom.
However, Obamacare went further than any previous federal intrusion. In the name of regulating commerce, the law ordered people who had not entered any market to purchase a private product. If upheld, the measure would establish the principle that Americans could be forced to buy American cars to bail out the auto industry, Lehman securities to save Wall Street, and homes to revive the housing market. Whether or not the insurance mandate is good policy — and there are lots of reasons to argue that it is not — it effectively dismantles any meaningful limits on the national government.
The five federal District Court decisions so far have broken three-to-two in upholding Obamacare. Although in the majority, the former have been less than persuasive. Indeed, District Court Judge Gladys Kessler stated in her opinion that the government could regulate “mental activity” — under a constitutional provision involving “commerce.”
All of these rulings were appealed. The Sixth Circuit was first to deliver its opinion, with the judges split two-to-one in favor of the president’s plan to treat passivity as if it was activity. Then last week the Eleventh Circuit said no.
Twenty-six states sued the federal government, challenging several aspects of the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (The law actually supersedes patient choice and bends the medical cost curve upward.)
One claim was that the legislation’s dramatic expansion of Medicaid, which would impose additional costs on the states, was “coercive.” Explained Judges Dubina and Hull: “[T]he coercion test asks whether the federal scheme removes state choice and compels the state to act because the state, in fact, has no other option.”
Unfortunately, the states all have chosen to accept federal Medicaid dollars. With their hands greedily extended, they have been unable to convince any judge in any case that they could do nothing about the extra costs to be imposed. The Eleventh Circuit majority noted: “[S]tates have plenty of notice — nearly four years from the date the bill was signed into law — to decide whether they will continue to participate in Medicaid by adopting the expansions or not.”
States might want to stay in the program without paying more, but that is not the same as being unable to pay more. Thus, observed the judges, “Medicaid-participating states have a real choice — not just in theory but in fact — to participate in the Act’s Medicaid expansion” and “Where an entity has a real choice, there can be no coercion.”
States should take this lesson to heart before again lining up for a federal handout.
The more important challenge was to the individual mandate. Under any serious interpretation of the meaning of “commerce” carried out “among” the states, not buying insurance does not qualify. The activity would have to cross state boundaries and, more important, actually be a commercial activity.
Under extraordinary political pressure the New Deal Supreme Court systematically denuded the Constitution of limits on government, substituting political preference for legal principle. In Wickard v. Filburn, the justices allowed the federal government to restrict a farmer from planting food for his family’s personal use, ruling that intra-state non-commercial activity was the same as inter-state commerce, since the former could affect the latter.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/19/obamacare-heads-to-the-supreme
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.19.11 @ 7:07AM
Here's an interesting comment from Rick Perry, which I happen to believe is true. It's bold and it's got teeth. Now, he's apparently running from it and that's the problem with Republican candidates. They mean what they say, until they don't mean it. Sounds almost like John Kerry.
http://thinkprogress.org/justi.....itutional/
The Constitution says that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left “general welfare” out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that “general welfare” includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does “general welfare” mean to you?
[PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.
oldfart| 8.19.11 @ 7:15AM
He is only in it a few days and is already starting to waffle. Too bad - what happened to the 'Texas backbone?"
massmile | 8.19.11 @ 1:01PM
What will they think of nex if this is allowed to stand? Will they tell us what light bulbs to buy or what cars we may own? Surely not in America.I am a 26 years old nurse, young and beautiful. Now I am seeking an older gentle man who can give me real love , so i got a username Annababe2011 on---a'ge'l'es's'da'te. C óM---it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and older men, or older women and younger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck it out or tell your friends.
David W| 8.19.11 @ 1:32PM
He's probably listening to some stupid political consultant who doesn't support the true conservative viewpoint (whatever that might be).
Moe Blotz| 8.19.11 @ 8:58AM
Congress is authorised to PROMOTE the general welfare,not provide. You must be quoting from that living constitution I have heard that the progressives use.
Have you considered| 8.19.11 @ 9:50AM
BHO'S, I believe that Perry's assertion here is correct...are you saying he is now walking this stance back?
At the link you provide, this followed:
[PERRY:] ""I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant. ""
This is troublesome to me. It is quite easy to read up on What They Meant. If he is so lazy as to not, this does not bode well for We The People.
I would like to point out that there is a comma, not a semicolon in that sentence. As a matter of fact, I read that one of the delegates tried to change it to a semicolon so as to indicate that it was it's own clause, and that this created an uproar at the time, and it was changed back to a comma.
It also escapes most folks that the General Welfare alluded to, is the enumerated powers other than defense, such as Patents, Post Roads, To Borrow Money, etc....
Anyway, here are a selection of James Madison's words as found in Federalist #41. (I urge that everybody read #41 in it's entirety...Its only about 6 pages long)
""Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed,that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an
authority to legislate in all possible cases."" .....
""''But what color can the objection have, when a
specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?""........
""For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural
nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.""
Mr. Perry would do well to read the words of our founders so that he will be able to articulate his position, and clearly denounce the liberal positions that are so contrary to our founding principles.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 10:29AM
I read the link, but I didn't see where Perry was backing away from anything. I did find the leftist take of the "author" predictable and filled with the usual cliches.
oldfart| 8.19.11 @ 7:11AM
Refer to 'An Old Man's Island' under AT LARGE by George H. Whitman if you want to see the logical extension of Obamacare where every part of the Constitution is subordinated to the commerce clause. Also in dissent “Judge Stanley Marcus called for a "pragmatic" decision reflecting "the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries." Yet even he admitted that "the individual mandate is a novel exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power" and that "it is surely true that there is no Supreme Court decision squarely on point dictating the result that the individual mandate is within the commerce power of Congress."
This kind of thinking will result in regulation of not just deed (the written word) but logically extended to thought as well if those thoughts are verbalized.
My fellow citizens – welcome to 1984.
Drudge Ette Obama| 8.19.11 @ 7:39AM
The District Court had it right - severability should have been affirmed. Judge Marcus' dissent was embarrassing and emotional in comparison to the relatively well-reasoned majority opinion.
Next step is for Justice Roberts to strongly suggest that Kagan recuse herself from the Supreme Court decision. That she hasn't done so yet supports that she's nothing more than a uber-Progressive and a plant.
Conrad Spiracy| 8.19.11 @ 7:54AM
I'm not too worried yet. She can recuse up until argument. If she doesn't, a ballsy House should draw up articles, a ballsy Senate should convict, and a ballsy DA should prosecute for perjury based upon her confirmation testimony.
The lines are drawn. The stage set. Let's see how this plays out. Meanwhile, keep your powder dry.
Con Spiracy
idalily| 8.19.11 @ 3:43PM
Balls? The Senate? Are you serious? Ballsy Senate is an oxymoron nowadays.
ds80| 8.20.11 @ 7:22PM
Yah ... Hilary left, a few years ago.
George S| 8.19.11 @ 7:58AM
This law should have been struck down by a landslide, one court after another. The fact that there are almost an equal number of judges who see no problem with a limitless federal government means that one day there will be such a limitless federal government. The law schools are not getting more conservative by the day, are they? Only a matter of time... today it may just eek by as unconstitutional but Scalia and Thomas are not forever. Might want to check on Romney's judicial appointment track record as governor.
YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 10:34AM
Liberalism is, unfortunately, a universal constant. Conservatism, however, is a doomed process at trying to stop it. That's just the nature of things. For proof... look at our history. We have moved left from day one and never gone back save for a few minor blips in history that have had no real impact on the trajectory of our future.
Matter tends towards order... men towards chaos.
I wish it weren't that way... but, at least in America, it seems to be a universal law.
fmm| 8.19.11 @ 1:05PM
I have often thought that the natural state of man is to be liberal (read self serving), that is why it has held on so long in the face of mountains of evidence that it is hurtful. It takes deep understanding to be otherwise.
YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 3:16PM
It's true. Locke was wrong and Hobbes right... man is a thug. And we have devised the greatest weapon to club our neighbor over the head with... government.
Brian F| 8.20.11 @ 1:24PM
Matter tends towards order...
This one caught my attention--I disagree. Matter tends towards chaos. Erosion, decomposition, oxidation all turn order into chaos. Man has the potential to reverse this, but it takes effort. I suspect you believe in Evolution since it is based upon the same assumption which is contrary to all experience.
I agree with you that socially we are and have been in decline, but I attribute this to human nature. It takes effort and discipline to overcome our base tendencies. This has to be learned. We have given up the fight, thus the popular phrase "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."
Even our legal thought has been corrupted as evidenced by our failure to contain the power of the federal government which I see as a necessary evil. It would be best if all men could govern themselves.
Should Have Impeached| 8.19.11 @ 3:30PM
Yes, and if it's struck down, progressives will be sure to bring it back time and time again until the court of "that day" finally upholds it. I think a litmus test SHOULD exist for appointees to the courts. The limits of government should now be firmly defined, and it should be established that no one--NO ONE--can be appointed to a court who doesn't exhibit a TRACK RECORD confirming their commitment to those limits. Being sworn to "uphold the Constitution" now represents just empty words... if not an outright lie! Unfortunately, determination of such a "litmus test" needs an arbiter... which the Constitution was intended to be! I guess We The People need to define the terms of the document for them!!! So ultimately: Who you vote for is of utmost importance.
Pecos Pete| 8.19.11 @ 8:19AM
Kill ObamaCare or lose individual freedom. If this sucker is not ruled unconstitutional, and/or repealed by the next Congress, we can forget about all of the other issues confronting the USA. Debt ceiling, DADT, federal spending controls, revision of the tax system, environmental dictatorial rules, etc., all will become normal. There will only be Big Brother.
There will be NO states' rights issues, no unconstitutional laws/reegulations, there will be only the federal government bureaucrats and the Ruling Class will have won. They will own the USA and they will own you.
Gary B| 8.19.11 @ 8:43AM
This illustrates the role judges have played in diluting the Constitution and states rights. Ultimately, every important issue ends up in their lap. That's when their freeform reasoning and twisted logic come into play.
If judges were honest and lived up to their oath of office, we wouldn't be in the sorry state we're in today. Instead, we find that most of them are members of the liberal high-five club.
I remember when Harry Browne ran for president and a reporter asked him what criteria he would use for selecting Supreme Court nominees. He said he would first make sure a nominee could read. Good humor is usually based on truth.
Most judges are smarter than a sixth grader, but very few of them are as honest as a sixth grader.
PCC| 8.19.11 @ 11:19AM
Hey, Gary, don't you realize that the Supreme Court justices all attended Harvard and Yale?
Don't you recognize that they're smarter than you and me and know better than you and me?
Should Have Impeached| 8.19.11 @ 4:23PM
You can take a phrase like "The grass is green" and fashion many arguments why that phrase means the grass can be red. In the words of another Lawyer-in-Chief, it all depends on what "is" is.
Anthony| 8.19.11 @ 8:50AM
Forcing citizens to participate in commerce is about as close as one gets to sanctioned Marxism in America.
The battle lines are indeed drawn, and as I have said in the past, Obozocare will tear at the very thin vail of civility that the S.C. labors under.
I predict Kagan will not recuse herself; she was put on the S.C. by Obozo precisely to insure his signature piece of American destruction.
That said however, watch the left ratchet up their phony calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself over the trumped up issue of his wife as a lobbyist.
This is just the beginning, watch what happens after the 2012 election, win or lose, Obozo will wreak havoc over America. The riots of the '60s will be picnics compared to what's to come.
Mimi| 8.19.11 @ 9:03AM
It just wasn't Just the MANDATE...The way it was written with all the "You musts " or else right on up to PRISON TIME ! Can you imagine the fears of a MOTHER who raised good children :
They will go jail for that? They can't afford health Insurance and a car payment ! They need the car to get to work! If any Judge anywhere agrees with that kind of Justice they need to be made to " RETIRE" early!
Picture 10-20 years from now....The jails are full to the BRIM with peoples young adult Children...their CRIME?? Not going along with King Obama's edict...BUY NOW and I will HIRE 16,000 more agents in the IRS...T O SEE THAT YOU DO !!"
Good grief...The DEMOCRAT 'S grand schemes are ridiculous. And it is WRITTEN 535 legislaters NEVER even read the LAW!
Mimi| 8.19.11 @ 9:24AM
Somebody in this country has to bring up this
question: Why is it that this President lacks
KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING of the SPIRIT of " The American Way", You know....The way we think and feel, the fairness aspect deep in our bones? Did you ever think that something "Ain't Right In Denmark " ?
NoMoBO| 8.19.11 @ 10:29AM
Geez Mimi - Where have you been all this time? Don't you GET IT? This "President" doesn't care about America. I don't know how much more sucinctly I can put it to you. He does not give a rat's petard about any of the things you mention in your post. Something's rotten in Denmark alright. Something's rotten in America - and it ain't Hamlet. Obama is a traitor and should be impeached or removed immediately. Please don't be so naive. But, glad you are waking up.
Mimi| 8.19.11 @ 11:18AM
I've been awake since before day 1...NoMoBo. I try to stay up on "The Lastest he's up to".... I'm getting long past ENOUGH ALREADY. The latest I heard ...Hill and Bill will run things, Biden out as V.P. Obama will golf and Play while
Hill does the work ! Save the PARTY stuff!....That Rumor sounds a little Un-constitutional to me....They should do what they proposed to NIXON...resign or! I've said all along the DEM'S need to take the walk to the WHITE-HOUSE. It is TOO LATE ? they gotta know the PARTY IS COOKED!!
Maddox| 8.19.11 @ 9:39AM
What difference does it make what Congress or SCOTUS decides? Obama's administration is doing whatever it wants through executive fiat and no one is stopping them. This isn't America anymore.
Gary B| 8.19.11 @ 9:58AM
And, not a peep about impeachment. Why? Because he's black, of course. Political correctness is killing us.
Do you think members of Congress are smart enough the hear the ticking of the time bomb? From where I sit, it's loud and clear.
YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 10:38AM
I'm sure they hear it... outside of their wine cellar/bomb shelter. Outside, when it blows up, the only ones hurt will be those monsters... those unwashed... those..... PEOPLE! How disgusting!
Inside, however, there will be kings and queens! They will be safe, THANK GOD!!!
/end sarcasm
Gary| 8.19.11 @ 10:27AM
It amazes me how few people realize the magnitude of power that will be given to the federal government if the Court upholds the mandate. I recall Pelosi's disdain when she insulted a questioner for asking if the mandate met constitutional muster. This attitude is typical of liberals. If they deem it "good" for the people that's all that matters as if the Constitution doesn't exist. Odd how the same people worship at the altar of separation of church and state, freedom of the press, as being protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights but spit on the separation of powers in the Constitution that establishes the basic nature of our government, one with limited powers and a system of checks and balances that is remarkable even in this modern day. The truth is liberals would be happy if the Constitution, except for the bill of rights would be repealed and they could get on with their welfare state without pesky limitations imposed by our Constitution. Tom Friedman and the NYT would be delighted.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 10:32AM
While I believe the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional I'd prefer the Republican House and Senate repeal it so the Republican President in 2013 could sign the legislation that buries Obamacare and establishes a solid precedent against this mindless grab for power by Democrats.
YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 10:44AM
I think the dissent argument clearly shows the difference between liberals (even the well intentioned ones... as few as they are) and conservatives. Pragmatism versus Principle. All differences can be boiled down to this. To a liberal, the ends justify the means (it is irrelavent of the method actually REACHES those ends... only that those are the ends they are going for). Look at their history. It was OK to murder millions of people in Russia to build the state so that it could protect and provide for the proletariat. It was OK to murder millions of people in China who sought to stand in the way of equality.
A conservative knows that the ends can only be justified by the means. It matters little where we end up, so long as how we got there was right. Principle at every step must be kept in order for the end game to be just.
Mimi| 8.19.11 @ 11:27AM
The Justice Dept's lawyers briefs were full of
" The end justifies the means" arguments!
Anthony| 8.19.11 @ 11:37AM
True, but if Obozo is re-elected in 2012, the Supreme Court will become just another Washington monument.
There will be no need for legal briefs from the Obozo ditcatorship, executive fiat will be the orders of the day, just as he recently did with halting illegal immigrant deportation.
2012 will be the mother of all American elections. Either we win, or American democracy is finished.
YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 12:17PM
No... the American Democracy is exactly what caused this problem. Rule of the American mob. It is the American REPUBLIC that we need to re-establish/reinvigorate.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.19.11 @ 3:27PM
Example of mob rule:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22167.html
Jerry Brown has just stolen the votes of all Californians for presidential elections. It does not matter how California votes, all 55 electoral college votes will go to the candidate that gets the national popular vote.
Whether they like it or not, California will give all 55 to the Republican candidate in 2012.
YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 4:06PM
I didn't read the article yet... but had to share the fact that I couldn't help but chuckle at your last line. There may be a silver lining in all this Prog states pushing for popular vote for president yet!
I had an argument with a co-worker years ago about how important the Electoral College was and how it was better than popular vote. She couldn't understand that if we get rid of the EC, we should also get rid of the Senate. I mean, we essentially have... except that it still allows for a smaller state's population to count for more, even if it doesn't allow the state itself a place at the table. Better than nothing, I suppose... but still bull crap that they are popularly elected. Do you think Obamacare would have passed if the State governments had control of the Senate? Not likely. Prime example of a Republic being better than a Democracy.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.19.11 @ 7:11PM
Parts of California are insanely liberal and this new law could only hurt the liberal cause. Those silly liberals. BTW, the law still sucks even if I benefit from it.
Only the liberals want the popular vote. Then, they can focus on the most populous liberal parts of states and ignore the rest. Hell, what's the point of state lines? You might as well get rid of them.
This country will go downhill like a freight train on a Mount Everest if the libs ever succeed in eliminating the EC. All they have to do is get 50.0001% on the dole and it's all over.
Should Have Impeached| 8.19.11 @ 8:22PM
If that happens... serves him right! I can't wait.
Should Have Impeached| 8.19.11 @ 9:16PM
I keep forgetting my post may end up far from the one I was replying to...
I meant it woud serve Jerry Brown right if California gives all 55 to the Republican candidate in 2012.
RCV| 8.20.11 @ 7:58PM
It would only go into effect when passed by states with a majority of the electoral college, thus insuring that the popular vote winner will become President.
Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 12:06PM
Should the Court through some massive travesty of insanity affirm the individual mandate the answer, State by State must be an opt out refusal to play. Several States have done so while many are involved in the suit. This is the final stand of Federalism, the final stand of Liberty for individuals in this nation. Here we are Citizens, not subjects.
What will they think of nex if this is allowed to stand? Will they tell us what light bulbs to buy or what cars we may own? Surely not in America. What actions might the States and the Citizens take ? What GOP candidates will wholeheartedly support repeal? That is our new baseline.
George S| 8.19.11 @ 12:37PM
Unfortunately, states cannot shield individuals or businesses from federal law (although the Constitution will not take offense if they do). Insurance companies will be under the thumb of federal agencies and they will have to survive somehow.
Also, a lot of states legislatures are, let's face it, the minor leagues of statism. They will dutifully follow the money coming their way.
Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 1:59PM
I agree that state legislatures . like Congress, are filled with accomodationist members who have other priorities than the defense of their citizens Liberties. Which States is the fed currently suing over their illegal migrant laws? Georgis I believe and Arizona as well. How would those States respond George if the fed prevails? Apparently they would continue to enforce their statues. Just an example of how States can protect their citizens when the federal government refuses to fulfil its obligation to do so.
RCV| 8.20.11 @ 8:01PM
Enforcement would be insured by the presence of federal courts in those states, who would issue writs of habeas corpus, which state court judges and officers are bound by our Constitution to enforce under the Supremacy Clause. And those state court judges will, because they know how to read the law.
nativeamerican| 8.19.11 @ 1:10PM
Look, who or whomever you are going to go with for president and Vice, you better start now and send them e-mails and everyone you know. That you will not vote for anyone who doesn't come out publically and say they will repeal the healthcare law.
Gary B| 8.19.11 @ 3:12PM
Rick Perry just said this today. He read your mind.
I'm still liking him. He needs to say stuff like this every day. If he stops, I'll stop liking him.
Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 1:24PM
I truly hope that this WELFARECARE case is ruled on by the SCOTUS as soon as possible, but I'm not nolding my breath on its favorable outcome from the legal community. My hope instead lies with the American voters' now ability to realize the supreme miscalculation that they made on 11/4/08, and to therefore correct their then error with a vote for a Republican majority in the senate and a Republican president in November of next year [afterwhich a repeal of this fiscal and moral nightmare aka OBAMACARE can be permanently eliminated from existence!!!!!!!!!!!!
Solo| 8.19.11 @ 7:21PM
HaveYouConsidered provides the relevant quote in this:
"""For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural
nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."""
This is the key to understanding Article 1 Section 8 properly.
It is, essentially, a Preamble and then goes on to explain the particulars one by one as to what that preamble means.
There is no social security, no medicare, no medicaid, no welfare, no "aid to dependent families with children, no food stamps, no national endowment of the Arts, no Dept. of Education, No dept of Health and Human Services, no Labor department....virtually NONE of the very things which are collapsing our national economy right now are authorized to the Congress by the Constitution.
If these types of things WERE to be allowed, there wouldn't have been a need for a Constitution limiting the Congress. The founders would have simply set up a pure representative democracy whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
But we all know that this is not what they intended. And they said so in plain English!
Nite| 8.19.11 @ 9:57PM
This law is a huge monstrosity! People in this country will be furious when they find out the actual parts. The Obama minions such as unelected unconfirmed Donald Berwick, are writing thousands of pages of rules and regulations. Even if the Supremes toss this thing out, it will likely take a lot of people several years to get rid of all the rules and regulations. A Republican President and Congress would do the country a favor if they stopped all Czars and recess appointments regardless of party. All appointees should have to be confirmed by the Senate.
TexasMom2012| 8.21.11 @ 3:58PM
Easy it get Seniors on board just by mentioning the fact that Obamacare cuts $500 billion from Medicare... Get the Jersey shore types by mentioning the tanning bed taxes... There is something in the bill for everyone to loathe. I believe support for repealing this bill can only increase as more is found out about this massive power grab.
Atlanta Hawks | 8.21.11 @ 11:57PM
good
Triana | 8.22.11 @ 4:35AM
oh my god this perfect
http://healthoutside.blogspot.com