Left panic stricken as Scalia says Obamacare individual mandate Constitutionally "not proper"

Coach is Right ^ | 3/28/2012 | Doug Book

[Oldpuppymax]

In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General and chief ObamaCare advocate Donald Verrilli was presented with a substantial portion of his own posterior by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The summary execution began when Verrilli made the extraordinary mistake of schooling the Court on the proper meaning of its own decisions.

“No it didn’t,” said Scalia to the stunned Solicitor General in reference to his errant references to the significance of previous cases.

And what followed was a merciless barrage of facts exposing the overreach of the individual mandate, ObamaCare’s method of creating “fairness in healthcare” by making those who do not want to purchase insurance buy it anyway or suffer a penalty.

When US District Judge Roger Vinson found ObamaCare unconstitutional in 2011 he wrote simply “If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce…it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.” (1)

And Scalia not only repeated Vinson’s skepticism of Congress’ immediate use of the commerce clause power, he drove directly to the heart of Verrilli’s contention that the federal government has the absolute authority to impose the individual mandate because it is “necessary and proper” to the success of ObamaCare itself.

“In addition to being necessary, it has to be proper,” said Scalia of the federal government’s unprecedented decision to force unwilling participants into the insurance market and fine...

[Graewoulf]

A mandate is merely a dictate. Thus, if we are dictated to, do we then live under a Dictatorship?

If our freedom of choice is taken from us by the dictates of a hostile Federal government, then what Liberty do we have left?

[Sgt_Schultze]

"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument."

--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

[treetopsandroofs]

“FreeAtlanta wrote:
I wonder if the economy will take off, if the court strikes this down? How soon will companies start hiring like crazy?”

Companies are likely to already know Hussein doesn’t like to be told no, and be worried how he will “double down” in response to this level of a reprimand on his agenda.

[Heart of Georgia]

“I’ll bet there’s some petition underway already asking for the messiah to bypass/ignore the SCOTUS.”

I believe they’ll try hard to ignore a ruling against them, maybe with an EO, if possible. Not hard to imagine how that would read.

[Secret Agent Man]

They have to knock the whole thing down. No severability clause in the act. Further they admitted it can’t work without the mandate so why keep any of it?