Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The Supreme Court: Playing the States...
Show More
Loading...
Flag voice-crying April 4, 2012 8:35 PM EDT
The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  

There's something in the constitution that says that if a law is constitutional and the Supreme Court loses its mind and rules it unconstitutional; the Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures can overrule them. I didn't know anyone could overrule the SC.

We know who's on the bench and what they are capable of doing...i.e. 2000 election. So! My question is: are those who brought this issue to the courts actually trying to take all rights from the Federal Government in favor of States Rights? Or, are they just playing politics?
 
 
The way I'm reading it..each of the 50 States-Congress, would have to vote on an issue (let's say the individual mandate); if 3/4 of all States vote for it, even though the SC (unjustly) ruled it unconstitutional, Congress would win. What I don't understand is...who tells the SC that they are wrong? How many centuries would it take for their (SC) ruling to be overturned so the different State Legislatures can vote?

This whole thing sounds very confusing. I think it is a diversion and those who filed the complaint knows it. 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]


[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.



 


  
Flag TENAC April 4, 2012 9:12 PM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  


I hate to drop a wet blanket on your party here, while congress has the right to regulate commerce among the several states,


congress does NOT have the right to force the commerce it wishes to regulate.


It is no more complicated than that.



There's something in the constitution that says that if a law is constitutional and the Supreme Court loses its mind and rules it unconstitutional; the Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures can overrule them. I didn't know anyone could overrule the SC.


That would be a constitutional amendment.  Do you really thank the 3/4 of the states are going to approve obamacare?  26 states are bringing the suit against it and at least that many have made amendments to their state constitutions regarding that very thing.

We know who's on the bench and what they are capable of doing...i.e. 2000 election. So! My question is: are those who brought this issue to the courts actually trying to take all rights from the Federal Government in favor of States Rights? Or, are they just playing politics?


Federal powers are enumerated in the constitution, any rights the courts are taking are being restored to their rightful owner, the states. I dont see the justices "playing politics" at all.  While I didnt like the Citizens United decision, they dont have the choice to determine anything except what comes before them.  Verilli appeared so ill prepared.


obama is in so far over his head and has overreached so far....
 
 
The way I'm reading it..each of the 50 States-Congress, would have to vote on an issue (let's say the individual mandate); if 3/4 of all States vote for it, even though the SC (unjustly) ruled it unconstitutional, Congress would win. What I don't understand is...who tells the SC that they are wrong? How many centuries would it take for their (SC) ruling to be overturned so the different State Legislatures can vote?


Read above.  Do you really think the states want this mandated health care plan?



This whole thing sounds very confusing. I think it is a diversion and those who filed the complaint knows it. 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]



[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.



 


  



Flag Bodean April 4, 2012 9:58 PM EDT

It's all wishful thinking Voice .... all wishful thinking.


The Justices have the responsibility to uphold the constitutionality of any law passed by congress.


They are doing their job. .. even if Obama doesn't like it.

Flag voice-crying April 4, 2012 10:05 PM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:12PM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:12PM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:12PM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:12PM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  


I hate to drop a wet blanket on your party here, while congress has the right to regulate commerce among the several states,


congress does NOT have the right to force the commerce it wishes to regulate.


It is no more complicated than that.


What are you saying..."force the commerce"? Each congressperson was voted into office in order to represent their States. Are you admiting that there is nothing unconstitutional about any part of the health care law??? 



There's something in the constitution that says that if a law is constitutional and the Supreme Court loses its mind and rules it unconstitutional; the Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures can overrule them. I didn't know anyone could overrule the SC.


That would be a constitutional amendment.  Do you really thank the 3/4 of the states are going to approve obamacare?  26 states are bringing the suit against it and at least that many have made amendments to their state constitutions regarding that very thing.


 


Based on what I read today...an amendmenet could be offered by Congress if the law was rightly ruled by the SC to be unconstitutional. I'm talking about if the law is found to be constitutional after the Sc (unjustly) rules it un. That's when (according to my understanding) the 3/4 of all States could overrule the SC.   



Federal powers are enumerated in the constitution, any rights the courts are taking are being restored to their rightful owner, the states. I dont see the justices "playing politics" at all.  While I didnt like the Citizens United decision, they dont have the choice to determine anything except what comes before them.  Verilli appeared so ill prepared.


obama is in so far over his head and has overreached so far....


What I'm hearing from you is...yes, they (the far-right-wing-SC-and assorted friends) are trying to eliminate the federal gov in favor of states rights!


President Obama was a constitutional Lawyer.  


Do you really think the states want this mandated health care plan?


People who care about people, want health care for the working poor; those who can't afford it now (that's what the mandate will provide). I don't think that people in America should have to go to the emergency room because they can't afford a doctor.  



 

Flag voice-crying April 4, 2012 10:08 PM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Bodean wrote:


It's all wishful thinking Voice .... all wishful thinking.


The Justices have the responsibility to uphold the constitutionality of any law passed by congress.


They are doing their job. .. even if Obama doesn't like it.




I want them to do their job.


I figure...if I can read the constitution and not see
a violation...I wonder what they are looking at!!!

Flag TENAC April 4, 2012 10:27 PM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:05PM, voice-crying wrote:



Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  


I hate to drop a wet blanket on your party here, while congress has the right to regulate commerce among the several states,


congress does NOT have the right to force the commerce it wishes to regulate.


It is no more complicated than that.


What are you saying..."force the commerce"? Each congressperson was voted into office in order to represent their States. Are you admiting that there is nothing unconstitutional about any part of the health care law??? 




Essentially that is what the mandate does.  It forces US citizens to into commerce, so then Congress may regulate it.  It is the ultimate usurping of our freedom.


Flag voice-crying April 4, 2012 11:01 PM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:27PM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:05PM, voice-crying wrote:



Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  


I hate to drop a wet blanket on your party here, while congress has the right to regulate commerce among the several states,


congress does NOT have the right to force the commerce it wishes to regulate.


It is no more complicated than that.


What are you saying..."force the commerce"? Each congressperson was voted into office in order to represent their States. Are you admiting that there is nothing unconstitutional about any part of the health care law??? 




Essentially that is what the mandate does.  It forces US citizens to into commerce, so then Congress may regulate it.  It is the ultimate usurping of our freedom.





It forces those who don't have insurance because they think they will never get sick to get it...and it forces those who can't afford insurance to get insurance (even if the government has to pay it for them). Forced coverage is already happening with those who turn 65. Anyone who is turning 65 has to purchace part B Medicare, whether they need it or not. Otherwise, if they ever need it they will be penalized. Also, anyone who owns a car has to purchase at least liablity. . I'm forced to have insurance on my mortgage 


If there were no "commerce" there wouldn't be a need for: local, state or federal government. We'd all be living in, and dying in caves


 

Flag nnsecu April 5, 2012 1:36 AM EDT

Can the government force you to purchase a gun, a blue ford SUV, or green socks?  If not then they can not force you to buy health insurance. 


Once the government can require you to purchase one good or service they then can force you to buy any they want.


The only part of the law i can somewhat see as being covered under interstate commerce would be requiring ins companies to cover pre existing conditions in order to operate in the US



FYI there are legal ways around Med B, mortgage ins, or auto ins that do not require a government enforced penalty so they can not in any way be compared to the healthcare law that does not offer the same option.

Flag voice-crying April 5, 2012 3:53 AM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


Can the government force you to purchase a gun, a blue ford SUV, or green socks?  If not then they can not force you to buy health insurance.



The government is not going to send anyone to jail if they don't buy health insurance. But, if you don't pay your taxes you might end up in the pen. The government is not going to send you to jail if you don't have a Social Security card...but, you can't get a decent job without one. There are consequences.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


Once the government can require you to purchase one good or service they then can force you to buy any they want.



There was a time when the government forced some people to join the service; while others visited France.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


The only part of the law i can somewhat see as being covered under interstate commerce would be requiring ins companies to cover pre existing conditions in order to operate in the US



We need to get rid of insurance companies because they are mere money-grubbers-changers.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


FYI there are legal ways around Med B, mortgage ins, or auto ins that do not require a government enforced penalty so they can not in any way be compared to the healthcare law that does not offer the same option.




The only "legal" way around Medicare B...is to never need it; other wise you are penalized if you didn't get it at age 65.


In this country the goal is to care about all the people all the time (not just the rich and the poor).


If any changes should be made to: the Obamacares Health Plan...imo, it would be to add: no hassle interstate doctor and hospital visits (just in case a person falls ill while visiting another State). 


 


 




 

Flag Girlchristian April 5, 2012 8:53 AM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:01PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:27PM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:05PM, voice-crying wrote:



Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  


I hate to drop a wet blanket on your party here, while congress has the right to regulate commerce among the several states,


congress does NOT have the right to force the commerce it wishes to regulate.


It is no more complicated than that.


What are you saying..."force the commerce"? Each congressperson was voted into office in order to represent their States. Are you admiting that there is nothing unconstitutional about any part of the health care law??? 




Essentially that is what the mandate does.  It forces US citizens to into commerce, so then Congress may regulate it.  It is the ultimate usurping of our freedom.





It forces those who don't have insurance because they think they will never get sick to get it...and it forces those who can't afford insurance to get insurance (even if the government has to pay it for them). Forced coverage is already happening with those who turn 65. Anyone who is turning 65 has to purchace part B Medicare, whether they need it or not. Otherwise, if they ever need it they will be penalized. Also, anyone who owns a car has to purchase at least liablity. . I'm forced to have insurance on my mortgage 


If there were no "commerce" there wouldn't be a need for: local, state or federal government. We'd all be living in, and dying in caves


 




You're forced to have mortgage insurance because your bank or lender says you have to and you agreed to that stipulation, not because the federal gov't does. You're forced to have auto insurance ONLY if you choose to drive a car and because your state says you have to, not because the federal gov't does. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that applies just because the person happens to be living and is applied by the federal gov't, a right they don't have.

Flag Girlchristian April 5, 2012 8:55 AM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:53AM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


Can the government force you to purchase a gun, a blue ford SUV, or green socks?  If not then they can not force you to buy health insurance.



The government is not going to send anyone to jail if they don't buy health insurance. But, if you don't pay your taxes you might end up in the pen. The government is not going to send you to jail if you don't have a Social Security card...but, you can't get a decent job without one. There are consequences.


But they will enforce a tax penalty and force you to pay it if you don't buy insurance.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


Once the government can require you to purchase one good or service they then can force you to buy any they want.



There was a time when the government forced some people to join the service; while others visited France.


Not the same thing...


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


The only part of the law i can somewhat see as being covered under interstate commerce would be requiring ins companies to cover pre existing conditions in order to operate in the US



We need to get rid of insurance companies because they are mere money-grubbers-changers.


Well, that won't happen with Obama's grand plan to force us to buy insurance from those money-grubbers-changers...


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


FYI there are legal ways around Med B, mortgage ins, or auto ins that do not require a government enforced penalty so they can not in any way be compared to the healthcare law that does not offer the same option.




The only "legal" way around Medicare B...is to never need it; other wise you are penalized if you didn't get it at age 65.


In this country the goal is to care about all the people all the time (not just the rich and the poor).


If any changes should be made to: the Obamacares Health Plan...imo, it would be to add: no hassle interstate doctor and hospital visits (just in case a person falls ill while visiting another State). 


 


 




 





Flag Bodean April 5, 2012 9:31 AM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:08PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Bodean wrote:


It's all wishful thinking Voice .... all wishful thinking.


The Justices have the responsibility to uphold the constitutionality of any law passed by congress.


They are doing their job. .. even if Obama doesn't like it.




I want them to do their job.


I figure...if I can read the constitution and not see
a violation...I wonder what they are looking at!!!





If you can read the constittuion and not see a violation .. then you are "reading" the constitution but, not really reading it.


You are looking for loopholes through which this might pass muster, but omitting the parts that oppose it.


Like I said in another thread, there was a legal way to pass Obamacare and it fall within the constitution .... that is, as a tax funded national initiative like S.S. or Medicare, where your "premiums" are taken out of your check as a TAX, and the program was funded like Medicare and S.S.


But .. the Democrats weren't going to go there .. because then it would "appear" as what it really is. ... Universal Health.  America opposes Universal Health .. aka Canada Style.  The democrats would have been slaughtered in the upcomming elections for opposing the wll of the people.  They also would have broke their promise of no new taxes on people making under $250K.


As a fiscal conservative ... I'm glad they didn't go the S.S/Medicare route.  Those programs are slated to bankrupt the nation.  Their funding mechansim is failing.  Other post industrial nations are seeing their own systems fail, and have been for a long time ... and interestingly, are moving more towards what we have.  Canada's "private system" is expanding rapidly, because the public system is insufficient.  GB's system is a dismal failure .. and they are looking for solutions as well.  Greece ... well .. they've already died a financial death, primarily because of their EU style entitlement system.


Obamacare, as passed was designed to be thrown out based on the Courts.  The "Uniter" put in place a perfect ploy to "divide", stoking the fires of class warfare.  This whole thing was meant to test the waters for full blown, leftists style, single payer, government run, univeral heatlh.


They got their answer.  America is not ready for it.

Flag voice-crying April 5, 2012 10:03 AM EDT

We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.

Flag drawout April 5, 2012 10:51 AM EDT

Sorry Bo but the polls disagre with this oft stated Lie. Americans have wanted a universal healthcare system for decades. The corporate propaganda has tried to convince them otherwise. But most understand that European universal healthcare costs half as much  as our system.


abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/health...
"In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000."


themoderatevoice.com/36314/poll-shows-mo...

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll...



www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01...



october2011.org/standwiththemajority

www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Am...

news.yahoo.com/americans-want-universal-...


I could do this all day and not run out of polls

Flag nnsecu April 5, 2012 12:19 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 

Flag voice-crying April 5, 2012 4:09 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:19PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 




Ok...I've got to read all of these [poll] sites, drawout listed. But, in the mean time, do you think that someone is trying to pretend that the President said that the individual mandate is a tax? Why would anyone do that? They are perpetrating a great big whammy!!!

Flag Girlchristian April 5, 2012 4:57 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:09PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:19PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 




Ok...I've got to read all of these [poll] sites, drawout listed. But, in the mean time, do you think that someone is trying to pretend that the President said that the individual mandate is a tax? Why would anyone do that? They are perpetrating a great big whammy!!!





From the NYTimes, www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy....


When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insuranceor pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”


And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.


Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.


In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.


Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.


While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.


“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”


The problem Obama is now having is that he's denied that the mandate is a tax, because he knew he wouldn't have the same support for it AND it would break his campaign promise, but the only way this mandate is constitutional is if it's a tax (like Medicare, SS, payroll tax) so it wasn't a tax when he needed support for it, but is now a tax when he needs it to pass constitutional muster.


Now, to add to this drama, news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/201....


In response to questions from lawmakers, acting White House budget director Jeff Zients testified to Congress in March the individual mandate fine in President Obama’s health care law is not a tax, an admission which contradicted the claims the administration made before the U.S. Supreme Court.


According to Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner, this is a sign the argument the Department of Justice is making before the Supreme Court is purely a delaying tactic designed to prevent the Court from hearing the case until the mandate is enforced in 2014.


What the administration is trying to do is now claim it's a tax, because if it is, then it can't be challenged until it goes into effect in 2014 and the Supreme Court won't be able to rule until it's challenged in 2014.

Flag catboxer April 5, 2012 5:36 PM EDT

Yes, the court has the power to stike down unconstitutional laws. But their behavior in this case shows that five of the current justices are attempting to usurp the powers rightfully held by Congress.


Over the decades, Supreme Court justices themselves have said the courts should overrule the work of Congress only on rare occasions. “Conclusory second-guessing of difficult legislative decisions,” said Republican and conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “is not an attractive way for federal courts to engage in judicial review.”


Now the court majority is making a big brouhaha about how "unprecedented" all this government participation in health policy is, because they care. The question is, who or what do they care about? Not us. As usual, the well-being of giant and wealthy corporations is their main concern.


Roberts asked, “If you’re an insurance company and you don’t believe that you can give the coverage in the way Congress mandated it without the individual mandate, what type of action do you bring in a court?” Scalia: “That’s going to bankrupt the insurance companies if not the states.” Alito: “What is the difference between guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions on the one hand and other provisions that increase costs substantially for insurance companies?” Kennedy: “We would be exercising the judicial power if one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended.” Majority silent partner Clarence Thomas said "......................................," meaning, "I'm with you guys."


We can all sleep better now, knowing that our Supreme Court is watching out for somebody's interests, if not ours. I'm touched by the deep solicitude they feel for our long-suffering, oft-victimized corporations. Thank God they're making sure no big bad Obama-man is going to injure or scare them in any way.


You know, What Ever. We'll get single payer yet.

www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/0...

Flag voice-crying April 5, 2012 8:57 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:36PM, catboxer wrote:


Yes, the court has the power to stike down unconstitutional laws. But their behavior in this case shows that five of the current justices are attempting to usurp the powers rightfully held by Congress.


Over the decades, Supreme Court justices themselves have said the courts should overrule the work of Congress only on rare occasions. “Conclusory second-guessing of difficult legislative decisions,” said Republican and conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “is not an attractive way for federal courts to engage in judicial review.”


Now the court majority is making a big brouhaha about how "unprecedented" all this government participation in health policy is, because they care. The question is, who or what do they care about? Not us. As usual, the well-being of giant and wealthy corporations is their main concern.


Roberts asked, “If you’re an insurance company and you don’t believe that you can give the coverage in the way Congress mandated it without the individual mandate, what type of action do you bring in a court?” Scalia: “That’s going to bankrupt the insurance companies if not the states.” Alito: “What is the difference between guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions on the one hand and other provisions that increase costs substantially for insurance companies?” Kennedy: “We would be exercising the judicial power if one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended.” Majority silent partner Clarence Thomas said "......................................," meaning, "I'm with you guys."


We can all sleep better now, knowing that our Supreme Court is watching out for somebody's interests, if not ours. I'm touched by the deep solicitude they feel for our long-suffering, oft-victimized corporations. Thank God they're making sure no big bad Obama-man is going to injure or scare them in any way.


You know, What Ever. We'll get single payer yet.

www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/0...




WOW!!!


And this is very good also: www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/0...


Thank You!!!

Flag catboxer April 5, 2012 9:06 PM EDT

Yes that's my source article. That's why I posted the link.


I pulled a lot of quoted material from it -- the Rehnquist, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy quotes.


I mixed them with my own words and paraphrased some of what Jeffrey Toobin said.


I should have mentioned his name, but provided the link like I usually do.

Flag Bodean April 5, 2012 9:25 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:09PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:19PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 




Ok...I've got to read all of these [poll] sites, drawout listed. But, in the mean time, do you think that someone is trying to pretend that the President said that the individual mandate is a tax? Why would anyone do that? They are perpetrating a great big whammy!!!





Sometimes I wonder .... sometimes I'm sure.


1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]

Flag voice-crying April 6, 2012 1:05 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:




1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


True.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]




False.


The President and everyone involved with the Affordable Care Act, has said that the individual mandate IS NOT A TAX. Those who don't purchase insurance will pay a penalty. I wonder if it will be like medicare...where if you don't purchase it when you turn 65...you will pay a penalty for all the years you didn't have it, if you need it later!


The individual mandate is not a TAX...repeat...it is not a tax.  If it were a tax it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


The far-wrong wingers are spreading the [IT'S A TAX] story.  But, they know that they are not telling the truth.


Hear ye, hear ye! The individual mandate is not a TAX!!!

Flag Girlchristian April 6, 2012 1:53 PM EDT

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:05PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:




1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


True.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]




False.


The President and everyone involved with the Affordable Care Act, has said that the individual mandate IS NOT A TAX. Those who don't purchase insurance will pay a penalty. I wonder if it will be like medicare...where if you don't purchase it when you turn 65...you will pay a penalty for all the years you didn't have it, if you need it later!


The individual mandate is not a TAX...repeat...it is not a tax.  If it were a tax it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


The far-wrong wingers are spreading the [IT'S A TAX] story.  But, they know that they are not telling the truth.


Hear ye, hear ye! The individual mandate is not a TAX!!!





You should re-look at post #17 which shows that you're wrong. Obama claimed it wasn't a tax and now that it's being challenged by the court his administration is claiming that it is a tax. If it's a tax it's constitutional.

Flag Nepenthe April 6, 2012 2:40 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.




?


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Flag voice-crying April 6, 2012 3:11 PM EDT

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:05PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:




1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


True.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]




False.


The President and everyone involved with the Affordable Care Act, has said that the individual mandate IS NOT A TAX. Those who don't purchase insurance will pay a penalty. I wonder if it will be like medicare...where if you don't purchase it when you turn 65...you will pay a penalty for all the years you didn't have it, if you need it later!


The individual mandate is not a TAX...repeat...it is not a tax.  If it were a tax it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


The far-wrong wingers are spreading the [IT'S A TAX] story.  But, they know that they are not telling the truth.


Hear ye, hear ye! The individual mandate is not a TAX!!!





You should re-look at post #17 which shows that you're wrong. Obama claimed it wasn't a tax and now that it's being challenged by the court his administration is claiming that it is a tax. If it's a tax it's constitutional.




I wonder if someone forgot to quote the whole passage in the constitution!


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [... and] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes [...]  And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof


I just looked at post #17.


WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”


And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.


Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.


Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.


In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.


Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.


While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.


“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”


When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”


Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.


Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.


Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.


“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”


The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.


Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.


In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”


Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.


Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.


Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”


Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.


Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.


“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.


In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”


In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.


In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.


The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.



Ah, ok I think I see what's going on! The "right" wants the President to say he's raising taxes. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." 


 

Flag voice-crying April 6, 2012 3:18 PM EDT

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:40PM, Nepenthe wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.




?


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.




I hear ya, but, I don't think the issue is does Congress have the power to collect taxes; I think the issue is...regulating commerce among the several States






 




Flag voice-crying April 6, 2012 3:44 PM EDT

 


What judges said who declared the individual mandate to be unconstitutional.


www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/health...


 

Flag voice-crying April 7, 2012 11:01 AM EDT

Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. I usually (always) learn something when I ask a question on this board...but this time I haven't learned anything. Actually I'm more confused. When I said...that if the individual mandate were a tax it would be unconstitutional, I was repeating what others...whose opinions I trust said. I normally question why!...But, this time I didn't (I should never say what I think based only on what someone else thinks or knows if I don't understand what I'm saying. Sorry.)


Although, the complaint (in the supreme court) has nothing to do with the "tax" portion of the Commerce Clause. The complaint deals with the Commerce Clause portion concerning the States [interstate commerce]. Ah, I'm so confused!!! 


If I'm deducting correctly...they're (far right-wing) leading to what the President wanted all along and that is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insu...


I just found this great site (a second ago). It kind of puts it all into perspective (I think):   www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/sup...


Again thanks to all!!!

Flag Find1Answer April 7, 2012 3:11 PM EDT

Apr 7, 2012 -- 11:01AM, voice-crying wrote:

Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. I usually (always) learn something when I ask a question on this board...but this time I haven't learned anything. Actually I'm more confused. When I said...that if the individual mandate were a tax it would be unconstitutional, I was repeating what others...whose opinions I trust said. I normally question why!...But, this time I didn't (I should never say what I think based only on what someone else thinks or knows if I don't understand what I'm saying. Sorry.)


Although, the complaint (in the supreme court) has nothing to do with the "tax" portion of the Commerce Clause. The complaint deals with the Commerce Clause portion concerning the States [interstate commerce]. Ah, I'm so confused!!! 


If I'm deducting correctly...they're (far right-wing) leading to what the President wanted all along and that is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insu...


I just found this great site (a second ago). It kind of puts it all into perspective (I think):   www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/sup...


Again thanks to all!!!


I have not participated on this thread because I am not a constitution scholar or expert.   lol  and none of the other posters are either.  lol

Flag aarroottoonn April 7, 2012 6:44 PM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  

There's something in the constitution that says that if a law is constitutional and the Supreme Court loses its mind and rules it unconstitutional; the Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures can overrule them. I didn't know anyone could overrule the SC.

We know who's on the bench and what they are capable of doing...i.e. 2000 election. So! My question is: are those who brought this issue to the courts actually trying to take all rights from the Federal Government in favor of States Rights? Or, are they just playing politics?
 
 
The way I'm reading it..each of the 50 States-Congress, would have to vote on an issue (let's say the individual mandate); if 3/4 of all States vote for it, even though the SC (unjustly) ruled it unconstitutional, Congress would win. What I don't understand is...who tells the SC that they are wrong? How many centuries would it take for their (SC) ruling to be overturned so the different State Legislatures can vote?

This whole thing sounds very confusing. I think it is a diversion and those who filed the complaint knows it. 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]



[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.



 


  



Interstate commerce doesn't happen when there is no commerce. Forced commerce isn't found in the Constitution.


Your statement regarding the SC being overruled is incorrect. If something is found unconstituional, the only remedy is to amend the constitution.


In 2000 4 of the 9 weren't on the court, so I question if you know anything about which you are speaking of. Especially when no one can take all power from the Federal govt; the constitution gives certain powers to the Feds. Such as the power to declare war.


The people who filed the complaint simply think the govt is out to grab too much power. The confusion is solely due to Obamacare, and those that would do anything to enforce something so blatantly unconstitutional.

Flag TENAC April 9, 2012 7:17 PM EDT
Flag Bodean April 9, 2012 9:42 PM EDT

Apr 7, 2012 -- 11:01AM, voice-crying wrote:


Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. I usually (always) learn something when I ask a question on this board...but this time I haven't learned anything. Actually I'm more confused. When I said...that if the individual mandate were a tax it would be unconstitutional, I was repeating what others...whose opinions I trust said. I normally question why!...But, this time I didn't (I should never say what I think based only on what someone else thinks or knows if I don't understand what I'm saying. Sorry.)


Although, the complaint (in the supreme court) has nothing to do with the "tax" portion of the Commerce Clause. The complaint deals with the Commerce Clause portion concerning the States [interstate commerce]. Ah, I'm so confused!!! 


If I'm deducting correctly...they're (far right-wing) leading to what the President wanted all along and that is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insu...


I just found this great site (a second ago). It kind of puts it all into perspective (I think):   www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/sup...


Again thanks to all!!!





Well VC .. I'm sorry you can't grasp it.


Ya see, taxes have to be prescribed.  For example ..you pay X% of your paycheck for SS. tax.  You also pay X% of your paycheck as Medicare tax.  You also have to pay a predefined amount of taxes on your income, depending on what you make.   You have to pay a predefined % tax on every gallon of gasoline that you put in your car.  Those are examples of taxes.


Had Obama passed the law as a TAX, like S.S. and Medicare, the law wouldn't be in the courts.  He could have even made it such that you paid in your $2500 TAX, and if you bought private insurance, you got a $2500 dollar tax CREDIT, so that it was returned to you.


But as I said earlier, Obama didn't want it to be a tax, because he promised he was not going to raise the taxes on a single person making less than $250K.  So .. he goes in for calling a penalty.


The only problem with it being a "penalty" is that penalties are paid at the time of offense.  Penalties are not TAXES.  But to try and weasle it through the courts, Obama set it up such that the "penalty" would be deducted from your tax refund, and collected by the IRS.


It's not a tax.  How is he going to go about collecting a penalty from the people who don't pay taxes?? ... he's going to have to send them a request for payment of the penalty.

Flag Hatman April 10, 2012 3:03 AM EDT

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:08PM, voice-crying wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Bodean wrote:


It's all wishful thinking Voice .... all wishful thinking.


The Justices have the responsibility to uphold the constitutionality of any law passed by congress.


They are doing their job. .. even if Obama doesn't like it.




I want them to do their job.


I figure...if I can read the constitution and not see
a violation...I wonder what they are looking at!!!


Though you say you've read the Constitution FOR the United States of America, you seem to lack a degree of understanding of it's true purpose and intent, clarified a great deal by the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the 9th/10th Amendments, e.g.:

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
-- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006) American minister, author

Both the Commerce and the "Necessary and Proper" clauses were INTENDED to refer ONLY to the SPECIFIC and FEW named powers which were delegated by the State governments to the general government.

Show me the word "health" or any clause whatsoever which mentions the People directly; it was ruled long ago that the Constitution is a compact between the States and the General government, and the USG has ZERO business interfering in the life of any individual save indirectly, via the cooperation of the State of residency.

That said, SCOTUS/Congress/the Executive have consistently and repeatedly(and criminally) extended the meaning and scope of both the words "general welfare" as well as the Commerce clause, but they have done so Unconstitutionally---which renders all such "rulings" or "acts" or "orders" invalid and void ab initio, for any and every Unconstitutional arrogation of powers not delegated is simply usurpation, or ASSUMPTION of powers-not-delegated, with the underlying assumption that NO ONE will dare to argue with them thrice-damned attorneys---or their jack-booted enforcement thugs...

Remember always and never forget: the Constitution as originally written and submitted for ratification was failing badly in most of the States, and would have been rejected---UNTIL the bill of rights, with it's crucial wording in the the Preamble thereto(i.e., "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of it's powers...") was appended.

Well, ol' Patrick Henry had it right: "impeachment" is a sham/joke, and the whole gang of them will be in collusion to steal our liberty by ambush.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

Flag TENAC April 10, 2012 8:48 AM EDT
Nice to see you Hat.
Flag Bodean April 10, 2012 9:09 AM EDT

Apr 10, 2012 -- 3:03AM, Hatman wrote:

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." -- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006)- Hatman




It is for this reason that Leftists HATE the US Constitution, including the Leftists Justices who serve on the SCOTUS. [aka Ginsberg being prime among them]


Leftist want a constitution that gives the Central Government unlimited power to "implement their leftists ideology".  They don't want a constitution that "prohibits" .. they want a constitution that "allows".


Not suprising, in all of the examples in the Forbes Article posted by VC ... the rulings were made by the activists judges put their by FDR.  Those judges were specifically put on the court to rubber stamp anything FDR wanted.  Hence, they "ssssttttrrrrreeeeettttcccchhhh" the interpretaiton of the commerce clause such that Leftists Goverment Oppression can take place.

Flag drawout April 10, 2012 9:49 AM EDT

How come no leftists ever actually say they hate the constitution? I always thought they spoke what was on their minds.


You need to prove beyond a doubt that you have certified mind reading powers before you have any creditibility on this one.

Flag Bodean April 10, 2012 10:52 AM EDT

Apr 10, 2012 -- 9:49AM, drawout wrote:


How come no leftists ever actually say they hate the constitution? I always thought they spoke what was on their minds.


You need to prove beyond a doubt that you have certified mind reading powers before you have any creditibility on this one.





Actions speak louder than words.


I mean ... Ginsberg ... does not like the US Constitution.  It does not have enough provision in it to allow the Government to implement Social Justice.  Thus, she suggested using something else.


FDR ... most certainly did not like the US Constitution.  He thus, packed the court with a bunch of Kangaroos, so that they would stretch the law in order for him to implement Social Justice.


Obama ... does not like the Consituttion.  The Constitution says what he can't do.  That Frustrates him, because what he wants to do is outside of the realm of power alloted by the Constitution.  So .. he tries the same tricks as FDR ... except ... Unfortunately for him .. he will not have FDR's kangaroo court to rubber stamp is Social Justice programs.


Leftists .... ok .. maybe they dont' "hate" the constitution .. but they most certainly do not agree with it.  They don't like it.  It necessitates that they do all kinds of gymnastics in its interpretation in order to justify implenting their Social Justice programs.


Flat out speaking .. the Constitution makes no provision or allottment of power to implement S.S., Medicare, Universal Healthare, National Education, National Welfare, Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac, The Federal Reserve, ... and a whole host of of other direct and indirect programs designed to "redistribute the wealth".  There is no justification in the constitution at all for such.  Sure .. Leftists have "Reinterpreted" the words .. "general welfare" to insinuate that it includes all of these, but it does not include any of this in original intent.


That frustrates Leftists ... and they don't like the Constitution because of it.  In essense .. they hate it.

Flag catboxer April 10, 2012 1:12 PM EDT

Apr 10, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Bodean wrote:




Actions speak louder than words.


I mean ... Ginsberg ... does not like the US Constitution.  It does not have enough provision in it to allow the Government to implement Social Justice.  Thus, she suggested using something else.


FDR ... most certainly did not like the US Constitution.  He thus, packed the court with a bunch of Kangaroos, so that they would stretch the law in order for him to implement Social Justice.


Obama ... does not like the Consituttion.  The Constitution says what he can't do.  That Frustrates him, because what he wants to do is outside of the realm of power alloted by the Constitution.  So .. he tries the same tricks as FDR ... except ... Unfortunately for him .. he will not have FDR's kangaroo court to rubber stamp is Social Justice programs.


Leftists .... ok .. maybe they dont' "hate" the constitution .. but they most certainly do not agree with it.  They don't like it.  It necessitates that they do all kinds of gymnastics in its interpretation in order to justify implenting their Social Justice programs.


Flat out speaking .. the Constitution makes no provision or allottment of power to implement S.S., Medicare, Universal Healthare, National Education, National Welfare, Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac, The Federal Reserve, ... and a whole host of of other direct and indirect programs designed to "redistribute the wealth".  There is no justification in the constitution at all for such.  Sure .. Leftists have "Reinterpreted" the words .. "general welfare" to insinuate that it includes all of these, but it does not include any of this in original intent.


That frustrates Leftists ... and they don't like the Constitution because of it.  In essense .. they hate it.




Man, that is totally awesome -- a completely empty argument. The only fact in it is an unfact, i.e., a fact that isn't true, since Roosevelt never packed the Supreme Court. He threatened to, but was talked out of it, thank God.


Other than the thing about Roosevelt, there isn't a single fact of any kind. The post consists entirely of assertions and opinions with no evidence that would in any way convince someone that the opinions are connected with reality in some way, which they aren't.


This kind of stuff is so abstract, and so far removed from anyone's experience that it's writing which is totally out of control, a runaway vehicle of opinions and glittering generalizations which roll downhill, never slowed by a "for example..."


If that was a student paper I wouldn't even give it a grade. The tentative grade is "do over," and the only comment I would append would be "EVIDENCE."


Or maybe I should congratulate you for composing an argument that can't be refuted, since there's nothing in it to refute, except the unfact about Roosevelt.

Flag Zaracyn April 10, 2012 6:31 PM EDT

FDR may not have "packed" the Supreme Court, at least not in the manner he had originally intended, however, he did appoint 8 of the 9 Justices of the Court:


As former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:


“President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937.[151]"


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedure...

Flag catboxer April 10, 2012 7:22 PM EDT

Good points -- want to make the Supremes more sympathetic to your point of view? Serve 13 years as president.


The political urge to control the court forever and cast it in the ideology of one's own persuasion has also led to youthful vigor being a prime qualification for the high bench today. We see this in the appointments of Clarence Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Mss. Sotomayor and Kagan.

Flag Hatman April 11, 2012 3:47 AM EDT
It has been my observation that any who attain to a position of power over others sincerely hate anyone who determinedly and obstinately points out the limitations to the powers they have arrogantly and unlawfully assumed, much less points out that the terms of their continued employment are conditioned on their faithful adherence to the limits they freely agreed to on oath prior to said employment, therefore they will do all in their power to squirm, re-define, claim "precedent," bluster and bloviate as long as possible about why what the Constitution SAYS is not what it MEANS, 'cuz it's been "interpreted," ya know?

If liars are caught in court, they're prosecuted for perjury, and it's arguable that even uncaught perjurers might negatively impact the lives of maybe a thousand people, being generous and considerate of ripple effects; however, since those who lie under their oaths of office have the potential to negatively impact millions-if-not-billions of lives, therefore the penalty for oathbreaking should be commensurately higher, up to and including execution.

For example, the penalty for debasing the coin of the United States used to be death; should be not only reinstated, but retroactively applied...imo, of course.

With goodwill to all the People(except Oathbreakers)-

Hatman
PS: Thanks, TENAC
Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 8:49 AM EDT

Apr 10, 2012 -- 7:22PM, catboxer wrote:


Good points -- want to make the Supremes more sympathetic to your point of view? Serve 13 years as president.


The political urge to control the court forever and cast it in the ideology of one's own persuasion has also led to youthful vigor being a prime qualification for the high bench today. We see this in the appointments of Clarence Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Mss. Sotomayor and Kagan.





OK .. I see how you operate.


I say FDR "packed the court" .. meaning he appointed a bunch of individuals who were politically aligned with his agenda, such that he could get favorable rulings on his programs .... and you say .. it's all just a bunch of opinionated rubbish.


Zacaryn comes in, and says the same thing ... and it's a "good point".


My apologies .. I guess I should have referenced Wiki for something that I thought everyone already knew.

Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 9:57 AM EDT

No, that's not what I said. I said he didn't pack the court.


He did not expand the size of the court to appoint additional judges sympathetic to the New Deal. He planned to, but was talked out of it.


What he ended up doing was appointing new justices as vacancies occurred.


There's a big difference.


You know, you could read the history rather than making up your own.

Flag Hatman April 11, 2012 10:48 AM EDT
If the points have degenerated into quibbling over semantics, perhaps it may be more accurate to say that Roosevelt "stacked" the court over his 13-odd year tenure by considering only candidates sympathetic to his causes, which apparently were to subvert and end-run the Constitution by any and all means necessary.

IIRC, his original plan was to arrogantly declare that SCOTUS ought to have 15 justices, and he had willing toadies and sycophants standing by to jump at his command.

After he was talked out of that plan(though why he acceded is beyond me; his was a quite dictatorial reign, and American idiots kept on voting him into office despite his theft of America's gold and multiple violations of his oath of office, betraying Americans to the banksters), THEN he just appointed his men, and arm-twisted yet another Quisling Congress into complaisance.

But perhaps this citation may shed light:

"The manuals containing these definitions(military academy manuals rightly defining and contrasting democracy and a republic) were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth(40% is more accurate; when the more moronic among the People turned in their 20dollar gold pieces in exchange for FRN's, gold sold for(natch) 20dollars an ounce; in about 18months, FDR, on the "advice" of banksters, declared that gold was now pegged @ 35/oz, effectively nearly halving the "value" of the FRN's), while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said, "Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference"."

Harry Hopkins is a character worth googling, as most Americans know squat about him or his influence.

But how a conversation about SCOTUS decisions for or against State's Rights and/or increasing the power of the general government(and setting yet more Unconstitutional "precedent") has been diverted into the FDR tangent is rather an exercise in futility---or just an excuse to get out complaints, one or the other, i suppose---is quite off-topic, therefore useless to furthering any point for or against the increase of Federal arrogance(imo, of course!).

With goodwill to all the People(except Oathbreakers)-

Hatman
Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 10:55 AM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Hatman wrote:

If the points have degenerated into quibbling over semantics, perhaps it may be more accurate to say that Roosevelt "stacked" the court over his 13-odd year tenure by considering only candidates sympathetic to his causes, which apparently were to subvert and end-run the Constitution by any and all means necessary.




Yep ...


I was content to let it lie.  If Cat cant read my previous post that states exactly this, .. oh well.

Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 4:25 PM EDT

To counter the impact of the Court's decisions on the New Deal reforms, President Roosevelt proposed legislation that would have altered the makeup of the Supreme Court.  The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which provided for broad reform of the federal judicial system, allowed President Roosevelt to appoint an additional member to the Supreme Court for every sitting justice over the age of 70, which would have resulted in a total of six new justices at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the fact that the Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, the legislation immediately came under sharp criticism from legislators, bar associations, and the public.


...


On July 22, 1937, the full Senate voted to send the bill back to the Senate Judiciary Committee where many of the provisions, including providing for additional justices to the Supreme Court, were eventually stripped. Finally, on August 26, 1937, the Senate passed an amended version of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill which did not include a provision to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.


(Source: www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history)


Roosevelt went on to appoint 8 justices in his 13-year administration.

Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 4:53 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:25PM, catboxer wrote:


To counter the impact of the Court's decisions on the New Deal reforms, President Roosevelt proposed legislation that would have altered the makeup of the Supreme Court.  The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which provided for broad reform of the federal judicial system, allowed President Roosevelt to appoint an additional member to the Supreme Court for every sitting justice over the age of 70, which would have resulted in a total of six new justices at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the fact that the Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, the legislation immediately came under sharp criticism from legislators, bar associations, and the public.


...


On July 22, 1937, the full Senate voted to send the bill back to the Senate Judiciary Committee where many of the provisions, including providing for additional justices to the Supreme Court, were eventually stripped. Finally, on August 26, 1937, the Senate passed an amended version of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill which did not include a provision to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.


(Source: www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history)


Roosevelt went on to appoint 8 justices in his 13-year administration.





All of which were ideological shills for his agenda.

Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 5:05 PM EDT

That's business as usual, isn't it?


Can you name any president who ever appointed a justice whose views conflicted with the president's?


Presumably, the people we elect believe in something. We vote for the people whose views we favor; they appoint judges whose views are harmonious with their own.


Don't get mad at Roosevelt for doing what GW Bush did. Dubya could have appointed eight justices too, if he'd been elected a couple more times.

Flag Hatman April 11, 2012 7:56 PM EDT
i despise FDR for a plethora of additional/other reasons(many of them also attributable to the Shrub), but he's not the subject(or presumably, object) of this thread...save perhaps tangentially, for many of FDR's programs and policies are no doubt the "precedent" upon which "Constitutional scholar" D'Obama is apparently relying in order to excuse his (effectively) dictatorial command that all Americans(i.e. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS," but another topic) purchase a service from privately-held companies.  After all, "public policy" has apparently supplanted positive law on any number of occasions, e.g. the UCC and "fiscal" policies which pretend that debt is money.

But make no mistake; if SCOTUS rules that the USG can compel everyone in America to make a purchase from a private company or be fined/jailed for refusing to do so, then such a "precedent" will be used to excuse ever-more tyrannical future shopping dictates from Mount D.C.
Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 10:37 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:05PM, catboxer wrote:


That's business as usual, isn't it?


Can you name any president who ever appointed a justice whose views conflicted with the president's?


Presumably, the people we elect believe in something. We vote for the people whose views we favor; they appoint judges whose views are harmonious with their own.


Don't get mad at Roosevelt for doing what GW Bush did. Dubya could have appointed eight justices too, if he'd been elected a couple more times.





GHWBush .. .appointed Suter .. who has turned out to be one of the most liberal judges on the bench.


Got any appointees from Democrats who fall in that category???  NOPE .. you sure don't!  Democrats are keen to apply their litmus test to insure that they get a pro-liberal on the court.


It's part of the Fabian Play Book. .. one of the three pillars of control to transform society.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook