Affordable Care Act SCOTUS Decision--Live Thread

SCOTUSblog ^ | June 28, 2012 | SCOTUSblog

[John W]

Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.

[OrangeHoof]

Watch how the stock market reacts too. This will have a major economic impact.

[Real Cynic No More]

And don’t forget the correct ruling that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual right.

[OneVike]

I agree. As much as I would like to jump on the side of angst about the Arizona ruling, it was the correct one.

Roberts will side with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. The question still remains however...............

What side will Kennedy stand with.

[kabar]

We will know in about 90 minutes if my fears are well-founded or not. Is a Gloomer similar to a “birther” or a “denier?” If so, I will happily accept that sobriquet.

[boxlunch]

I found this website last night after watching the “Patriot” with my husband and browing around to find more information. Thus is not advocating individual lawlessness, but advocating state governments, duly elected, to push back against federal tyranny and unconstitutional law.

http://nullifynow.net/ An important way to seek constitutional compliance is to organize widespread civil refusal to comply with unlawful official actions. A precedent for this was the 1783 Pennsylvania Council of Censors, discussed by James Madison in Federalist #48. The objective is to avoid having to launch separate legislation for every usurpation, but to provide a process by which resistance may be mobilized quickly as usurpations occur. The items below concern doing this at the state level for federal actions.

More Details:
State Nullification of Federal Action: http://constitution.org/reform/us/tx/nullification/nullcomm.htm

---

Do we still have enough local citizens and elected representatives with courage in this country to push through something like this? I’m afraid if Obamacare is upheld, that the vise of Federal tyranny will be tightened so quickly we won’t even have time to regroup. I pray that is not the case. If a state did “nullify” a federal law, what would be the feds immediate reaction? The Feds would do something to intimidate both the “council” and the state. Again, do we have enough people with righteous anger and courage to stand up against this?

[John W]

The blog is up and here is the correct link for today-—

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

[John 3_19-21]

Wailing & gnashing of teeth, book mark

[kabar]

Back when the framers were still alive, it was ruled that naturalization and immigration are linked, and therefore one and the same..the states cannot set their own immigration policies

You can buy that nonsense of the majority decision and the government's lawyers. Read the dissents of Scalia, Alito, and Thonmas.

AZ was not setting its own immigration policies. None of its laws conflicted with federal law. The federal government's case was a joke in terms of preemption and the Supremacy clause.

[PAConservative1]

I can’t sleep either, even though I’ve been on political hiatus since Willard de facto won the nomination in April.

[RedMDer]

Bookmark

[Havisham]

We have to be prepared and have an action plan. The Rat Tottenburg is already saying the people will DEMAND a replacement law because they love Obamacare so far. Really? These commies never stop.

[Redleg Duke]

Excellent Post!

The true value of the Arizona Law is to bring it to the attention of the entire nation that the Federal Government is not enforcing its immigration laws and not doing its primary duty...that of protecting the people of the United States of America.

Like you clearly stated, the Supreme Court was excactly right in its ruling.

[joe fonebone]

Ya know..

I have seen alot of posters here on FR lately that either do not have knowledge of the constitution, or choose to ignore it when they do not agree with it..

I am, hoever, finding more and more people who are falling along the lines of “Strict Constitutionalist”..

You are one of those people

I find it refreshing and invigoriating to see that the numbers of people who believe in our constitution as written appears to be rising.

I have stated many times that the constitution, enforced as written, would piss off just as many conservates as it would liberals...

This ruling is just one example of many..

[Founding Father]

opinions are announced by author of the majority opinion in reverse order of seniority. This opinion will be last only if the most senior judge of those writing majority opinions today is the one who writes it.

[joe fonebone]

My prediction is 8 to 1 to throw the whole thing out... the senile old bag will be the only dissention..

This thing is just soooooo blantantly unconstitutional, even the damn libs should be able to see it

[linn37]

I’m rooting for throwing it all out. Whatever they decide I will live with.

[Eastbound]

"Again, do we have enough people with righteous anger and courage to stand up against this?"

Depends what level of 'courage' are you talking about?

[Springfield Reformer]

ping ....

[fedupjohn]

Bump

[EternalVigilance]

not a “popular” or “trendy” ruling, but a constitutionally correct one

I disagree.

While Congress obviously has sole constitutional power to set immigration and naturalization policy, the AZ law simply mirrored federal law.

And remember, these particular laws are laws that are in fulfillment of the absolute constitutional obligation by the United States to secure the states from invasion.

To tell the state of AZ that they cannot, in the absence of federal fulfillment of its most important duties, enforce these laws is to say that they cannot defend themselves.

And the right of self-defense is God-given, unalienable, intrinsic.