Posted on 07/04/2012 6:30:33 AM PDT by IbJensen
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., speaks to reporters outside the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on June 26. On Monday, McConnell said the odds were against repealing Obamacare. Photo Credit:AP/J. Scott Applewhite
It's on his to-do list, but U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says the odds are against repealing the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.
The Kentucky Republican said Monday it's hard to unravel something of the magnitude of the 2,700-page health care law, WHAS-TV reports.
"If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I'd say the odds are still on your side," McConnell said. "Because it's a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place."
(Excerpt) Read more at times247.com ...
The day is come now when I am FOR Ron Paul and all things he brings to our last hurrah, which is our convention.
GOPE have sold us cheap.
I contribute by voting against Establishment types. It started with me by NOT voting for McCain, but for Bob Barr (R-GA).
It is unfair to ask others to DO anything much beyond voting against Romney and all things Establishment, until YOU figure out a strategy to turn away money as our god and overcome the technology which is the single sure enforcer that YOU behave.
Rebellion in the manner of yesterday is history. We need brains able to level such a playing field, to counter the enforcers and so far none have shown up.
The spots are all over the place on Radio and TV, Of course the strategery is to make everyone PO’ed if these FREE BENEFITS are taken away by eeeevillll REPUBLICANS!
BUT, What we need is a PAC to buy time and tell these ignoramouses that NOTHING is free and it will cost you all dearly, much more than paying for the stupid test...AND if you are old you won’t get the treatment anyway, just a pill from King Bozo Oxydol’s “stash!”
Limiting the jurisdiction of the Court here would not have helped. The problem with Obamacare is not that the Court ran roughshod over Congress. The problem is that the Court refused to overturn Congress (i.e., the Court was too restrained, to put it one way). Limiting the Court’s discretion would have accomplished nothing.
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,”
“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” ~ Senator Rand Paul, Kentucky
Cheery, now.
There is much to do.
Cheery, now.
There is much to do.
(What we need is a "Just Read The Damn Constitution" party. It's is written in plain English, not Sanskrit!)
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:
“You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
Except that (1) Congress acts only by passing bills, so Congress could not restrain the Supreme Court from hearing the case without the President’s approval, (2) even if Congress could act alone, the Senate would have never gone along with that, and (3) Congress cannot strip the courts of jurisdiction in cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and several states were party to the health care case.
Moreover, all prohibiting the Court from hearing this case would have done would have been to leave the lower court rulings as-is, which would have meant that different parts of ObamaCAre would have been struck down and upheld in different parts of the country.
That won't get the American car out of the ditch.
I swear, what we need is a "JUST READ THE DAMN CONSTITUTION!" party. We do NOT need a class of "judicial Mandarins" to interpret the Constitution for us! Not. At. All. We ordinary peons can use the tools plainly written in the Constitution to "self-rescue" our nation.
Naturally, this won't happen tomorrow. It will only happen at the end of a bitter political "Tea Party Revolution," as a means of offering a peaceful way out to the "Constitutional Mandarins," socialists, 'rats and other covert enemies of the Constitution, giving them a fig leaf short of a shooting civil war.
But it can, and it will happen. The alternative is abject, cringing surrender to the tyranny of 5 lifetime-tenured oligarchs. That, I will never, never accept.
Just hold course on Article 3 Section 2, wrtten in plain English, and not Mandarin or Sanskrit, and needing no Byzantine lawyerly interpretation: "The supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It's just plain English. Don't be fooled by legalese smokescreens.
"...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:
“You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
We can win this. It won't be easy, but the PLAIN ENGLISH of the Constitution is on our side.
Don't suffer legalese smokescreens!
Some people are calling for a ConCon. Not me. The courts, the COngress, the President, even the States have all ignored it. What makes people think they would honor a new Constitution? They wouldn’t.
I think we need a “Just Read The Damn Constitution!” party.
No Mandarins to interpret 200 years of “implied” dogma.
That clause is NOT qualified by the language you cite. In other words, Congress CANNOT strip the court of jurisdiction over cases "in which a state shall be a party." Several states were parties to the ObamaCare lawsuit. As such, Congress had NO power (under the language of the "damn Constitution," as you put it) to strip the court of jurisdiction.
And, even where Congress can strip the courts of jurisdiction, it can only do so by passing a law. Article 1, Section 8 states that "The Congress shall have power . . ." That doesn't mean that Congress can do all of the things in Article 1, Section 8 without the President's signature.
Finally, again, stripping the courts of jurisdiction over the ObamaCare cases would not have accomplished anything. We WANTED judicial review of the law, because the law was passed by Congress. The case did not go as we wanted it to go, but it at least gave us a chance. Had the courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases, ObamaCare would have stood, no questions asked. How would stripping the courts of jurisdiction over ObamaCare have helped get rid of ObamaCare?
Hey Mitch, B.F.S! Follow my lead, you spineless weasel.
Vote for repeal, get the President to sign it, and then:
Fire every single federal and/or state employee and/or bureaucrat who has anything to do with ObamaCare, confiscate their taxpayer-paid cell phones, iPads, laptops and credit cards and sell them for scrap.
Take every scrap of paper relating to ObamaCare and shred them, burn them and then bury the ashes at Yucca Mountain.
Rip out the phone and fax lines at every single government office implementing ObamaCare. Sell-off all the assets, furniture, fixtures, and turn out the lights, close the doors and padlock them.
>> He wrote an editorial in the newspaper whee he stated that “I’ll be damned if I’ll allow any filthy oil or gas rigs on private property in My township.”.
Little emperor indeed. There’s a lot of that going around these days.
Dethrone the emperors!
Happy 4th!
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
We’re definitely in accord!
These puffed-up political elites like the pasty-faced Kentucky Colonel, lack the fortitude to do anything against the bureaucracy they’ve helped create.
To stand there, before cameras and microphones and tell Americans that it’s hard to do what the hell they were elected to do in the first place is mindboggling. How they could allow or vote for enactment of this pile of paper designed to make our lives even more miserable makes honest men want to puke their guts out!
You’re right, it is plain English. There are two sentences in the section dealing with the Court’s jurisdiction. The “Exclusion Clause” is a clause of the second sentence, modifying the second sentence, which deals with appellate jurisdiction. The first sentence, dealing with original jurisdiction, has no such clause. It’s plain English grammar: a clause in a sentence modifies that sentence.
Do you really want Congress to have the authority to strip the courts of jurisdiction over cases involving states as parties? Do you not realize how much that would expand Fedeal power over the states?
Get Sirius, Mitch is still a reject from the pigsty.
Acts of Congress are temporary and could (would) be reversed the next time Rats are in control.
Constitutional change, and radical change at that, is required. The states need a stronger voice - a veto, if you will - over not only the SCOTUS, but Congress and the President as well.
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.