Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare
Forbes ^ | April 5, 2012 | Peter Ferrara

Posted on 04/06/2012 6:24:41 AM PDT by libstripper

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added)

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
Excellent, relatively brief, highly readable explanation of why SCOTUS may well invalidate Obamacare.
1 posted on 04/06/2012 6:24:46 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: libstripper

“...by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Someone help me out here...aren’t we a republic?


2 posted on 04/06/2012 6:29:09 AM PDT by mrs. a (It's a short life but a merry one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
Well, there you have it.

The constitutionality of a law depends upon how "strong" the majority was that passed it.

3 posted on 04/06/2012 6:31:14 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

))))PING((((


4 posted on 04/06/2012 6:34:45 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

As opposed to how strongly the American electorate was AGAINST it.


5 posted on 04/06/2012 6:36:19 AM PDT by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrs. a

We were until 1860.


6 posted on 04/06/2012 6:37:28 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I wish the Supremes would sink Obamacare, but I have my doubts. Still, a good bi*ch slapping of Obama by the Supremes (legally of course) would be sweet.

At this point, there is no one willing to stand up against this dictator wannabe. Congress is useless. I hope the SC will do what is right.


7 posted on 04/06/2012 6:38:09 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs. a

The Republic died with the fraudulent passage of the 17th amendment.


8 posted on 04/06/2012 6:38:59 AM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
>"passed by a strong majority"

LIE!

Murtha ramrodded it down our throat with an audible vote, and he committed TREASON at that!

9 posted on 04/06/2012 6:40:03 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs. a

We were. It’s almost gone, now.

Remember Ben Frranklin’s admonishment, after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787? “We have given you a Republic, m’am, if you can keep it.”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=11128


10 posted on 04/06/2012 6:41:05 AM PDT by carriage_hill (I'd vote for a "orange juice can", before 0bummer&HisRegimeFromHell, gets another 4yrs. Can-> later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

—relatively brief—

Three pages. But very interesting. Thanks!


11 posted on 04/06/2012 6:41:42 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Excellent article and 100% spot on!


12 posted on 04/06/2012 6:41:56 AM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to preserve it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I would not bet the farm that they will. In fact, if I was a betting man,I would bet that they find some excuse to uphold it.


13 posted on 04/06/2012 6:42:16 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

Mercifully, he’s dead, but his treason will live for a long, long time, in many ways.


14 posted on 04/06/2012 6:42:25 AM PDT by carriage_hill (I'd vote for a "orange juice can", before 0bummer&HisRegimeFromHell, gets another 4yrs. Can-> later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

How about the fact that the 2,700 pages were all patched together from various authors and also empowers the HHS to write the rules as they go?

Strike it down en tot and force those CongressCritters to bring it to the floor again, sans individual mandate, if they dare.


15 posted on 04/06/2012 6:42:29 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

cUZ THERY’RE NOT GOING TO READ 2700 PAGES.


16 posted on 04/06/2012 6:43:31 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
Obama’s attack on the SCOTUS wasn't done in ignorance of the law but to convince the ignorant that the court's decision to strike down Obamacare would throw thousands of sick people into the street with no medical care. I believe Obama was leaked the Court's decision by Justice Kagan and has begun campaign damage control. Note the Republican leadership did not raise any issue about Obama’s wild accusations and demagoguery and just continued to play their role as Emperor Obama’s court eunuchs. It was the judges of 5th District Court of Appeals that had the guts to show the utter falsity of Obama’s comments.
17 posted on 04/06/2012 6:43:46 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs. a

—But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.—

Yeah, Dan Rather found out the hard way that the internet has changed that formula. :-)


18 posted on 04/06/2012 6:45:00 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy
At this point, there is no one willing to stand up against this dictator wannabe. Congress is useless. I hope the SC will do what is right.

It's vital that they do. Dictator-in-waiting (only he's not waiting) Obama seems willing and eager to sweep aside the majority of the American people, the congress, and the high courts.

19 posted on 04/06/2012 6:45:50 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

219-212 is a “strong majority”.
The Line Item Veto passed the House with Unanimous Consent.


20 posted on 04/06/2012 6:46:39 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

bmfl


21 posted on 04/06/2012 6:47:00 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

They also had contingency plans in place. Remember Lady Louise Slaughter who was all ready to “deem” this thing passed in order to avoid a vote?


22 posted on 04/06/2012 6:47:19 AM PDT by Fair Paul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

I still perplexed why nobody has focused on the “strong majority” part of Obama’s statement.

Obamacare was passed via bribes and legislative trickery, and even then only got through by the skin of its teeth.

Strong majority? Hardly.


23 posted on 04/06/2012 6:47:58 AM PDT by Brookhaven (Mitt Romney will right-size the economy--just like he did your job when he bought your company)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

That’s how “Democratic Socialists” see things,........The MOB RULES!


24 posted on 04/06/2012 6:56:54 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

so if a majority of congressmen pass a law abolishing elections then Obama was say that is constitutional.


25 posted on 04/06/2012 6:57:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

—I wish the Supremes would sink Obamacare, but I have my doubts.—

I’ve read a lot of articles on this, and this is the best one yet. Interestingly, he doesn’t even mention the administration’s argument that it’s a tax and therefore A-OK.

He makes it clear that any other decision to allow the mandate to stand would be ridiculously activist and completely unsupportable while many many precidents have already been established in the last 240 years making this law DOA at the SCOTUS.

The only way they could twist things enough to pass it with even a remnant of a straight face is via the “it’s a tax” argument, which the author oddly doesn’t even address.


26 posted on 04/06/2012 6:58:16 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Note the Republican leadership did not raise any issue about Obama’s wild accusations and demagoguery and just continued to play their role as Emperor Obama’s court eunuchs

yes, where has the grand old party disappeared to? not a peep out of them, although McConnell did slam Dear Reader.
27 posted on 04/06/2012 6:59:01 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

The article contains some very pretty, very well-informed reasoning.

Too bad the left-wingers on the Court don’t care a fig for reasoning, no matter how well-informed or elegant. They care for power and payback. Nothing else matters.

I wonder if they’ll even make an effort to explain their votes.


28 posted on 04/06/2012 7:00:56 AM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Note the Republican leadership did not raise any issue about Obama’s wild accusations and demagoguery and just continued to play their role as Emperor Obama’s court eunuchs

yes, where has the grand old party disappeared to? not a peep out of them, although McConnell did slam Dear Reader.
29 posted on 04/06/2012 7:01:36 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
“...by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

ONE vote is a 'strong majority'?

And they didn't even go through the reconcilliation process between the House and the Senate because it WOULD NOT have made it through

30 posted on 04/06/2012 7:01:49 AM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ngat
We were until 1860.

Correct give or take a year, maybe 5.

31 posted on 04/06/2012 7:02:39 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I am putting the chances at 50/50 on whether they would strike the whole Obamcare down or upheld it. I do not put a lot of trust in what happened during the oral arguments because asking a tough question by a judge regarding Obamacare does not mean that this judge is going to overturn it.


32 posted on 04/06/2012 7:02:46 AM PDT by jveritas (God bless our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Bingo. Slumbama is doing a preemptive strike.


33 posted on 04/06/2012 7:03:17 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I can’t help but thing that this whole thing was planned. Ramming the law through in the dead of night, 2700 pages of regulations that nobody even read, and for me the kicker is that things weren’t supposed to really kick in until after the election. To me this doesn’t sound like a “law” this sounds like a charade - pass the thing with one vote in the dead of night, then have the SC strike it down, and then run on the issue in 2012. While convoluted, to me, it’s not *that* convoluted.

“Look we gave you healthcare but the evil SC just took it away. Vote for me”.

Finally, I’ll probably get flamed for this - but - the few provisions of the law that *DID* kick in right away (which I would argue were the only provisions that were really meant for consumption) are not all that bad - like incentivising adoption of electronic medical records, incentivising quality care with ACO’s and reforms that really do make a good deal of sense (at least to me).


34 posted on 04/06/2012 7:08:22 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Best article I’ve read explaining why it is unconstitutional.


35 posted on 04/06/2012 7:09:15 AM PDT by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs. a
Geez lady, you're just a Conservative hayseed. What do you know?

Just because the President of the United States - as a result of his foreign-raised childhood - has absolutely NO idea about America, who are you to point this out? Oh, go back to clinging to your guns and Bible.

Sheesh, just because we are a Constitutional Republic, and NOT a democracy, doesn't mean you know more than the faux former editor of the Harvard Law Review! Why Barack Obama is as American as the neighborhood mosque.

36 posted on 04/06/2012 7:18:06 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
Why didn't the attorneys against Obamacare also argue that the law was never constitutionally passed in the first place, since it was done by reconciliation
37 posted on 04/06/2012 7:22:35 AM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Yeah, been through that argument. I just go with the 1860 elections to keep it simple, but signing date of the tariff law suits me.


38 posted on 04/06/2012 7:23:30 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
I hope Mr. Ferrara is right, he presents the case why Obamacare should be overturned, as to whether they will or not remains to be seen.

The author's still only sure about five of the justices, and if he's wrong about any one of them, then his thesis sinks.

I still don't know why the most powerful argument against Obamacare doesn't rely upon the equal protection statutes. It is clearly not a "mandate" when waivers of all kinds have been provided to both individuals and legal collectives. The issuance of a waiver means that if I don't get a waiver, then I'm being "singled out" in the law, thus violating not only the stated reasoning behind the mandate, but clearly giving me, or anyone not given a waiver, standing to sue under equal protection.

Obamacare's "mandate" implicitly discriminates against persons not provided a waiver.

Anyone out there a constitutional lawyer?

39 posted on 04/06/2012 7:24:46 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows...

Obama was NOT ever a constitutional law professor. He was a lecturer that was put in that position as a means of providing him with a living stipend while he was being groomed.

The only public picture of him in this capacity shows him in front of a blackboard (is that racist) with a bunch of community activist organizing nonesene on it. The cannard that he was a "professor" keeps getting repeated even by commentators that should know better.

40 posted on 04/06/2012 7:26:31 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
...the few provisions of the law that *DID* kick in right away (which I would argue were the only provisions that were really meant for consumption) are not all that bad - like incentivising adoption of electronic medical records, incentivising quality care with ACO’s and reforms that really do make a good deal of sense (at least to me).

I appreciate your optimism that the provisions you cite seem "not all that bad" from your perspective.

Keep in mind that you're looking in from the outside while some of us are getting hit by them on the inside. While they may seem to have laudable goals to you, the provisions you cite are just the same onerous top-down, inefficient Federal mandates that never work as intended elsewhere.

Why would you believe that arbitrary, restrictive Federal regulations would work any better in a hugely complex system like medicine than they would anywhere else in the economy?

41 posted on 04/06/2012 7:29:35 AM PDT by doc11355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

#1 - decide Constitutionality of State and Federal Laws,
#2 - decide disputes between Sovereign States.

Obama, how effing hard is that to understand, imbecile!

If Obama wants to mandate like this then effing start the proceedings for a new Constitutional Amendment and see how far you get, loser. This process has the requirements for a “true” majority and consensus of ALL states, not just a bunch of tyrant Democrats you happened to have pulled together at an instant in time. Choke on it, loser.


42 posted on 04/06/2012 7:29:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
This article (published in Forbes) by Peter Ferrara that explains the reasons Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional is definitely one of the most concise I've read. It makes the sometimes convoluted language and legalisms associated with this kind of constitutional case easily understandable to those of us who are not attorneys. I've bookmarked it for future reference when debating the issue (online) with Obama sycophants.
43 posted on 04/06/2012 7:33:52 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Overturning Obamacare is so simple, even a caveman could do it. They built the law forcing health insurers to cover everyone at the same rate. It became obvious that people weren’t going to buy coverage until they needed it which would cause the pool of payers to be only very sick people. The only way to get the pool of people to contribute was to add the individual mandate and if you didn’t pay you were assessed a fine or tax or penalty. By doing this the federal government took over policing action which is a state responsibility. The government went way beyond their limited, enumerated and regulated power and tried to insert their authority to make people do things, which states control. Even Kagan and Sotomayor should know enough about the law to vote Obamacare down. If they don’t they have no business being Supreme Court justices.


44 posted on 04/06/2012 7:33:52 AM PDT by Harley (Will Rogers never met Harry Reid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Yeah, been through that argument. I just go with the 1860 elections to keep it simple, but signing date of the tariff law suits me.

King Lincoln killed the republic and we can argue over the exact date, but the republic is still dead none the less. Sic semper tyrannis.

45 posted on 04/06/2012 7:34:06 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sport
I'm more optimistic, but not rolling in glee.

I think the Illegal made a fatal error in his 2010 State of the Union Speech when he called out the Court for its decision in the Citizens United case. Justice Kennedy, the very man he needed most to persuade in the inevitably upcoming Obamacare case and the Court's most mercurial justice, wrote the Citizens United decision. Hence, the Illegal's attack on that decision was a direct, uncalled for attack on Kennedy himself. Add to that the Illegal's current, fanatical, attack on the Catholic Church for defending its most basic doctrine, with Kennedy being a Catholic, and you have a perfect recipe for Kennedy playing, "don't get mad, get even."

Indeed, even if Kennedy cast an initial, preliminary vote in favor of Obamacare, I suspect the Illegal's most recent ignorant and inflammatory diatribe against the Court might cause Kennedy to change his vote. Hence, my guarded optimism.

46 posted on 04/06/2012 7:36:39 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doc11355

Well I’m actually more of an insider than you might think. Believe that or not - but I see things from the inside looking out rather than the outside looking in.

Health care is the last major industry to go electronic. Imagine if the airline reservation system functioned like a doctor’s office or a hospital with paper charts and scribbled notes? To me it only makes sense that health care needs to enter the 21st century with respect to how information is handled. I never claimed that it was easy - only necessary.


47 posted on 04/06/2012 7:41:03 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I am just curious how the Senate RATS could break Congressional rules and pass this bill through reconcilation, and then get away with it? does not seem right?


48 posted on 04/06/2012 7:49:50 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

“Geez lady, you’re just a Conservative hayseed. What do you know?”

I am suitably chastened...I yield to the wisdom of TOTUS...where’s my Kool-aid?


49 posted on 04/06/2012 7:55:06 AM PDT by mrs. a (It's a short life but a merry one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

Oh, that’s been addressed often enough. It passed on party lines, and that only because some Dems got strong-armed/paid-off to comply.


50 posted on 04/06/2012 7:59:41 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson